Game Developers Missing Their Target?

wh0pper writes "Digital Trends is reporting that a recent survey finds that there aren't just 2 gamer markets, but instead a whopping 6. What does this mean? It means that game developers and publishers are ignoring a large portion of the gaming market by focusing on the traditional two segments: casual gamers and hardcore gamers. The 4 other game markets they identified are Social Gamers, Leisure Gamers, Dormant Gamers, Incidental Gamers. If you are wondering what those categories mean, the article gives descriptions of what each segment is. A surprising result from the survey is the importance of social gaming; video games are often considered a solitary activity, but Parks Associates' findings indicate a significant portion of the market views gaming as a social activity."

Comments

Splitting hairs

[stupidfoo]

WTF difference is their between a "Casual Gamer" and a "Leisure Gamer"?

Re:Splitting hairs

[stupidfoo]

Ughh... my grammar sucks.

Anyways, about 4 or 5 of these "new" categories fall under the "casual" banner.

Re:Splitting hairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably a good few page hits, by the sound of it.

Re:Splitting hairs

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF difference is their between a "Casual Gamer" and a "Leisure Gamer"?

Not sure, but I started out as a Leisure Suit Gamer. I still get misty-eyed when I see Lefty's.

Re:Splitting hairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Casual gamer was split into 3 catagories based on amount of time and types of games played
leisure >58 hours-casual games but likes some complex
dormant likes complex but doesnt have much time anymore but would like to play more around 20 hours
ocasional- mostly boardgames simple games little time

Re:Splitting hairs

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no difference, looks like the editor mistakenly used 'leisure' instead of 'occasional'. In any case, the analysis is somewhat misleading. How do you market specifically to social gamers? By definition they're mostly looking for interaction with other players, not the game environment per se. They'll go play what everyone else plays. Dormant gamers will likely want to play the same things as powergamers, they'll just have less time to do so. In any case, the design and marketing budget will continue to go to those making products for the demographic that spends the most - the powergamers.

Re:Splitting hairs

[Anonymous Coward]

A casual gamer refers to someone who does it infrequently and not as a passionate hobby. A leisure gamer is different from a hardcore gamer in that they don't devote as much time or thought to gaming, but both archetypes hold gaming as enjoyable pastimes that they like doing.

Re:Splitting hairs

[(H)elix1]

WTF difference is their between a "Casual Gamer" and a "Leisure Gamer"?

Lots of polyester in the closet?

Re:Splitting hairs

[complexmath]

WTF difference is their between a "Casual Gamer" and a "Leisure Gamer"?

I assume you meant "Leisure gamer" and "Dormant gamer." It's difficult to be sure, but my guess is that it has to do with the number of hours per month each spends playing games. Leisure gamers seem to spend a lot more time gaming than Dormant gamers, mostly because they have more free time. This distinction is arguably a bit silly, but it may apply to game design with respect to the length of an average gaming session. For example, a Leisure gamer might have the time for a raid in WoW while a Dormant gamer would not, even though both are interested in the same type of game.

I do think the addition of a few more categories is a step forward however. For example, a lot of gamers would be considered power gamers in terms of how they approach gaming, but casual gamers in terms of available time (represented by "Leisure gamer" and "Dormant gamer" in the list). Blizzard seems to have been catering to power gamers with little end game content for casual gamers, beleiving that casual gamers will rarely make it that far. But this obviously ignores a rather large subset of players in the Dormant and Leisure categories. Social gamers are another category for which MMORPGs tend to have a lot of appeal, but they typically approach content with a more "casual" play style. Often, these players experience very little content for the time they spend online because they're more interested in roleplay or simply chatting.

Re:Splitting hairs

[toolie]

Not sure, but I started out as a Leisure Suit Gamer. I still get misty-eyed when I see Lefty's.

Dude, aim away from your face. Thats how you go blind... all that 'mist'.

Re:Splitting hairs

[PMadavi]

How do you market specifically to social gamers? By definition they're mostly looking for interaction with other players, not the game environment per se.

With games like DDR, Guitar Hero, Mario Party, etc.

Re:Splitting hairs

[aywwts4]

How do they market to social gamers? Oh I dont know... maybe something like this? http://wii.nintendo.com/images/fea_gamepg_wiisport 3.png

Re:Splitting hairs

[JKConsult]

I think you're pretty on with the distinction there. I probably fall into a combination of the categories (as I'm pretty sure many do): If I'm at a place where MarioKart is being played amongst many people, I will without a doubt sit down and whip ass, I don't play games a lot due to a lack of time (though I do own an XBox with ~10 games), and when I do, I rarely devote more than an hour to it.

Like someone upthread, I was raised on Sierra games (Christmas in the (mid?) late 80s, I got a Tandy and King's Quest, and I own virtually every Sierra title up to KQ V; incidentally, that original KQ box is autographed by Roberta Williams, from the time I spent at a game design firm in the 90s), and I have to say that these days I miss games with a discrete set of problems, saveable at any time, where I can tackle one problem, save, and then come back in a few days. Too many games these days forget that people need to be able to save/restore at any point and at any time.

Re:Splitting hairs

[stupidfoo]

Yeah, I mentioned that I f'ed that up fucktard. About 4 hours ago. So congrats.

Re:Splitting hairs

[geminidomino]

So a dormant gamer is a hardcore ("power" in the article) gamer with a job, family, and/or school.

At last, I've found my niche!

Re:Splitting hairs

[SCPaPaJoe]

I've personally gone from hardcore gamer to dormant gamer since my son was born. My hand built, water cooled, overclocked super system now holds more baby photos and movies than games.

Re:Splitting hairs

[teflaime]

WTF difference is their between a "Casual Gamer" and a "Leisure Gamer"?

You will see that what many of us define as a "casual" gamer is what the article defines as a "leisure" gamer. The article also defines as the "power" gamer what we would commonly refer to as the "hardcore" gamer. Of the other 4 types of gamer listed in the article, 2 are subsets of the casual gamer, as we define it: the "dormant" gamer is a casual gamer who has too many RL responsibilities (for instance, they should get a divorce and sell the kids on the white slave market to create free time), the "incidental" gamer is the casual gamer, only more bored than usual.

The "occasional" gamer is poorly labeled, but correctly defined: they play puzzle, word, and board games almost exclusively, which means they live on yahoo games; that doesn't mean they aren't hardcore (have you seen how long some of these people stay logged in?). It just means that they don't like a wide variety of games. Kind of like the guy who will only play FPS games, or RTS games because they suck at eveything else.

Finally, they define the "social" gamer: someone who play for interaction with friends/people. In truth, this is the kind of gamer that only modern online games best fulfill the needs of. They can be either hardcore or casual, but they game because of the attachment they feel to the people the game with, not just because they like the game.

What the article really seems to be saying is that game developers are ignoring the needs of casual gamers. An arguement that has been heard over and over on every game related message board in the world, with nasty rejoinders and fevered rhetoric from both the casual and hardcore gamer.

Re:Splitting hairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard seems to have been catering to power gamers with little end game content for casual gamers

This is actually the reason I end up quitting every MMO I start to play: the length of time required to get anything done increases exponentially. In the lower levels, you always have simple missions you can complete in 10-20 minutes. At the highest levels, you require work-day lengths of time to complete anything substantial. I love the gameplay of MMOs, but I also want to get to all the fun stuff in the high levels.

Also, it probably carries over to other games. The longer it takes to get something done, the less likely I am to do it. If I can save anywhere I want and pick up the game where I leave off, I'm more likely to play and finish it. Several games I've seen recently that don't allow you to save at anytime blow my mind. Why not allow a player to save wherever they want? We've got room for large saves now, why not use it? There's something to be said about increasing the difficulty by limiting where you can save, but is it really worth giving up convenience and fun (in a game) for difficulty?

Re:Splitting hairs

[RingDev]

I'm right there with you. I went from hard core (guild leader/raider and game mod'er for DAoC) to dormant (I played a few games I already owned once and a while) and now I'm getting back into games. My son is a bit older now, and his schedule is pretty well set (naps in the afternoon, in bed around 8pm) so I have some "quiet time" I need to fill while he's sleeping. I'll never be able to do an 8 hour 40 man raid in WoW, but I enjoy running through some quests and smaller instances in my down time. I would say I'm more of a leasure player now. It's less competetive, and more balanced with the other things in my life I need to or want to do.

-Rick

Re:Splitting hairs

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

yeah I always find myst starts to hurt my eyes if I play it too long.

Careful kids!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mental masturbation will make you blind...

The only time I play is social...

[b0r1s]

Usually drunk with a bunch of 25-30 year guys playing whatever the latest good multiplayer console game is (or good singleplayer game that works well in 'turns' - Burnout Revenge, for example).

Gaming as a Social Activity

[Anonymous Coward]

I tend to see this more and more nowadays. Yes, there's networked games like MMORPGs and FPS'ers but I think it goes beyond that. We're talking gaming as a spectator sport where a group of friends gather 'round some guy playing GTA solo.

Incidentally, I see a similar trend in web-surfing. Some guy surfing through interesting/funny/lame sites while a group spectate him or her.

I don't understand it completely. When I game, it's me against the computer...or someone on the other side of the network. No audience. Even in LAN parties, people have a chance to PLAY together, not just to watch someone else play.

When I surf slashdot, there isn't a crowd behind me going "oooh man, you're really gonna say that?"

What's going on here? Is it an after-effect of the prevalence of TV?

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[amuro98]

I know a few people (mainly women, oddly) who don't like playing games, but will sit and watch others play. I think this is partially due to the stories in the game, or just wanting to cheer their S.O. on.

I also know others who were in long distance relationships and would schedule to watch something on TV while on the phone (or IM) as a sort of virtual date. If it worked for TV, why not web-surfing, or even gaming? You could go "shopping" with your IM-buddy, for instance, or meet up in WoW or something.

And back in the days when I MUD'ed, I knew a lot of players who were just there for the social aspect. They weren't there to do quests or kill monsters, and would just hang out in the pubs to chat with other characters as they passed through.

I doubt that's what the article was refering to as a "social gamer" though.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[Sage Gaspar]

I tend to see this more and more nowadays. Yes, there's networked games like MMORPGs and FPS'ers but I think it goes beyond that. We're talking gaming as a spectator sport where a group of friends gather 'round some guy playing GTA solo.

This isn't new, I mean since arcades have been around people have gathered around the guy pulling off crazy shit, and back in the early 90's me and my friends used to sit around for a couple hours every once in a while playing a one-player CRPG.

One reason is that some games are very cinematic and story-based, making for decent viewing. Another is that some games are very strategy oriented and require almost no skill, so you don't lose much by not being at the controls. Think puzzle games, adventure games, turn-based strategy, CRPG... you don't lose much by not being at the controls, so it can become like a group effort. Shadow of the Colossus is a recent example like this, once you figure out the strategies they're not hard to pull off. A third is that if a game is skill-based, it's neat to see what other people can pull off.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a few people (mainly women, oddly)

Your geek card has been revoked. Have a nice day.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[Angron]

Incidentally, I see a similar trend in web-surfing. Some guy surfing through interesting/funny/lame sites while a group spectate him or her.

Because it's so much more interesting web-surfing on your own! If people want to see the same lame/funny sites, then doing it in a group seems perfectly logical.

I've also known people who prefer watching others play games, probably because they prefer passive entertainment to active. For some games it even makes sense, when it's the kind of game where you just want to see what happens when you do various things. ("What happens if you set the police car on fire?") It's just like people getting together to do stupid things in real life, but less dangerous. The only time it starts becoming weird is when people are getting together to watch something more repetitive like Tetris or something.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[amuro98]

Hey, wait a minute, they were female geeks (or at least, geeky females).

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[hazah]

The only time it starts becoming weird is when people are getting together to watch something more repetitive like Tetris or something.

I take it you haven't played one of the newer Mortal Kombat titles then. That's some bloody tetris.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[grappler]

A friend of mine commented on this. He declared that the computer is the new 'hearth', or gathering place, for conversations and trips down memory lane. Friends crowd around its warm glow, looking at photos, looking up obscure topics that come up in conversation, and watching youtube videos. Or, in this case, games.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[atomicstrawberry]

There are some recent games which come to mind that really encourage this sort of thing - one person playing while other people watch, with watching being just as interesting a prospect as actually playing it. Two that come to mind are Shadow of the Colossus and Guitar Hero. The former is an incredibly visually impressive game, and I've found that whenever I've played it it's drawn in an audience - even just my family members. The latter is basically designed to be played with a group of friends.

I'd also argue that it's the social aspect that made Halo such a runaway success on the Xbox. A lot of people voiced their dislike of the single player, however the game lasted for ages simply because of the incredibly fun social aspect of being able to haul your box over to a friend's place and play in large groups. I've played a lot of FPSes and been to a lot of LANs, yet somehow playing 8-16 player Halo multiplayer over system link has a very different and far more social feel to it. Oddly, it didn't seem quite so prevalent in the sequel.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[tverbeek]

I've also known people who prefer watching others play games...

Such as the entire viewing audience of ESPN, 99% of whom haven't touched a ball of any kind since they were in school. Personally, I don't see the appeal (spectator sports bore me to tears), but evidently there are a lot of people who will happily settle for vicarious play rather than participate in an actual activity or game. It shouldn't be too surprising if that holds true for virtual activities as well.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not so much one person playing and others spectating, but simple games that don't take a lot of skill or even video game knowledge are very popular here at my college. Girls who never play videogames rotate turns at DDR and Katamari Damacy. When the guy who owned the Gamecube dropped out, they went out and bought another and a couple of the Mario Party games within a month or so. They pass the remotes around, cheer each other on.

As little kids, even those who'd rather play outside would come in and take a turn or two at Mortal Kombat. It wouldn't be something they'd ever do alone, but in a group they can button mash and it's a connection.

I think it's more like a group of people stumbling into an arcade after shopping for something else, and everyone trying out for a turn, rather than turning hardcore gaming into a spectator sport. Although, I admit I've sat on the arm of a couch and cheered while 'the guys' played that dang Halo. They really should've gone into deeper detail of their classifications to make a more usable study. The data is nice, but not helpful if there's ambiguity with the terms they use.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[theundergroundman]

What an amazing sterotypical "anti-social geek" comment. If it was not written so sincerely I would think it is a troll.

I have a lot friends, it is fun to play video games but they do not strike me as the type of activity it is worth ditching my friends for. Reading a book is worthwhile as an alternative to hanging out with my friends. If I am playing a video game I am prone to ask myself why I am not doing something social. Playing games with other people is fun even if it is a single player game like God of War where you have to sacrifice some time at the controller for hanging out with a buddy. Also you are an alcoholic when you drink alone while playing games versus having awesome fun when you drink with your friends while playing games.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[damaki]

I do not think there should be any kind of strange explanation. Some one player games are fun, gathering with friends is fun too. What about doing the two at the same time? Did you never play an adventure game with a friend of yours, so that you could both think on the solutions of the puzzles. 10 years ago I was already playing Riven with my best friend. And it was not only about puzzles, video games were expensive, you do not want systematically to lend your games. So what about playing in alternance. If you are specifically surprised about friends as spectators, you have probably never watched a friend killing the uber-boss of the XYZ game. You know, the one you cannot kill yourself.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[Aero]

I know a few people (mainly women, oddly) who don't like playing games, but will sit and watch others play. I think this is partially due to the stories in the game, or just wanting to cheer their S.O. on.

My girlfriend is a gamer of sorts, but the only game we play together (as in we're both controlling aspects of the game) is Puzzle Pirates, and the occasional turn-based strategy. When I'm on the PS2, she'll be my "wingmate" -- pointing out things that I may have missed, suggesting ways to deal with enemies or puzzles, warning me about health/ammo/time running out, that sort of thing. As well as enjoying the story, if it's a story worth enjoying. Someday (in her copious free time) she wants to write a fluff article about games that are fun to watch for people in the room who aren't playing. (A fairly wide range of titles for her, too...her tastes run from Katamari to Kingdom Hearts to Ratchet & Clank (except for the most recent one) to Resident Evil...)

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

You're absolutely right. In regards to the Halo 2, I think the problem is that it became the flagship for online play with xbox live and the fun that you'd get crowding around for LAN play maybe once or twice a month got diminished by the ability to play it whenever you wanted in a big (online) group. I know some of my best times playing videogames has been in getting 12-16 people all together in a crowded room to play Halo 1. One time we'd actually gotten 22 people with some 6 TVs of various sizes all playing (multiple games going on at once) Halo. We never had that much fun, or even close to that many people after Halo 2 came out.

Re:Gaming as a Social Activity

[Anonymous Coward]

Also you are an alcoholic when you drink alone while playing games versus having awesome fun when you drink with your friends while playing games.

So someone is an alcoholic when they drink alone but are not when they drink with friends?

I don't condone drinking alone but being an alcoholic isn't anywhere near as black and white as this. Besides, "having awesome fun" is a terrible basis to judge whether one is an alcoholic. The biggest alcoholic I knew in college only really drank when he was "having awesome fun" with friends. Yeah, he drank on his own sometimes but just because he was drinking with friends 6 days a week doesn't mean he is not an alcoholic with a problem. (He was an alcoholic in that he wanted to and did drink every night and that it was genetic.)

How old are you? 18? 19?

Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Dormant gamers make be 26% of the population, but they probably don't make up anywhere near 26% of the money spent on games, which is what really counts.

Re:Money

[amuro98]

I don't think money is the only important aspect.

For instance, Yahoo and other sites offer free games (online & otherwise) which are often sponsored by ads. While no money is being spent by the gamer in this case, you can be sure that the longer he plays on such sites, the more money he's generating for the website in question.

Realistically, I think you would have to consider a graph where "money spent" makes up one axis, and "time spent" is the other. This means you could have a heavy spender, who doesn't actually play much ("the collector") and on the other extreme you'd have someone who spends 4-5 hours a day playing a free game. And if you further explored the TYPE of games played by these people (eg. FPS/action/arcade, RPG/adventure, puzzle/card/board) you'd see further patterns.

Re:Money

[Ruff_ilb]

What you're thinking of (the time v money idea) can be evolved to provide a total image of profit for the parent company in question, especially for MMOs.

Consider the ideal MMO player for Blizzard: You're probably thinking of the hardcore dungeon crawler eager to get their hands on the latest loot and run the latest instances. In all reality, this is the absolute WORST player for blizzard. They're forced to constantly release new content for this player, listen to them whine, and fix bugs that don't affect the casual gamer. They also play much, MUCH more, which is where the real problem for blizzard comes in - if a hardcore WoWer plays 4 hours a day, they're using up the bandwidth of 4 casual players who play ~1 hour a day. Thus, the ideal population for blizzard consists solely of casual gamers who will pay their $whatever a month and buy every expansion, but not actually spend that much time playing.

Note that, while the above example is a clear MMO one, the same concept applies to ALL games; Valve, for example, also has to support bandwidth costs, and all companies have to support development costs for new content, whether in the form of expansions, patches, or periodic/episodic material.

It's hard to argue that hardcore gamers represent health in a particular game, either; look at the Splinter Cell Chaos Theory multiplayer mode - most of the people playing it are totally hardcore, and that game has no more than 200 people playing it any particular night. It's clear that the presence of hardcore gamers indicates that a given game is doing well.

Thus, money really IS the only important aspect in the long run, but in order to calculate that figure, you have to take into account your initial analysis of how much money is spent by each gamer, and then consider the amount of money they effectively block the company from getting based on the amount of the game they play.

Re:Money

[Tuebit]

Probably quite true that they don't spend 26% of the money on games. But that's EXACTLY the point. As a group, they've probably got the same (potentially more) disposable income than, say, the power gamer group. Perhaps it's a stereotype, but I suspect the power gamer group is somewhat underemployed. The point of the 'Dormant' segment is that they don't spend on games. It raises the question (a question of interest to game developers) ... what does it take to get this group (and their money) back into the game. I'm a 'Dormant' gamer (formerly, heavy into multiple MMORPG's, a few FPS). I'm not any more. Just as the description of 'Dormant' gamer implies ... I'd like to play with family (well, not so much) and friends (definitely), but I don't have the time. I like deep complex games (many MMORPG's fall into this category, I think). I've got the disposable income. I've even got the desire to game ... I'm just waiting for a game that fits my needs. Now that my afflication has been labelled, when is someone going to come up with the treatment (a game for me).

Re:Money

[johnstein]

Dormant gamers can be viewed as recovering alcoholics. They don't spend money on booze anymore, but the urge is still there (from what I've heard anyways). For dormant gamers, like me, who have tasted the addiction of video games, but for some reason or another have gotten out of the habit, the money is often there, but there hasn't been a good reason to get us back into gaming.

The Wii has very effectively captured my attention, and I really think there are a lot of people out there like me, young professionals with some disposable income and a renewed interest in gaming.

So you are true. We don't contribute nearly as much money, percentagewise, NOW. But the market is there ready to be tapped... Just give us a quality and original product instead of a lot of the same old stuff.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear.

From the age of 5 and my first ZX Spectrum I played games all the freakin' time until... well until I went to university as a mature student 16 years later. My life changed pretty dramatically and I've a lot more options on how to spend my time, even now I'm long finished and working hard. Over the last few years I've made sure not to miss out on what I perceived to be the "big" titles (HL2, doom3, Far Cry, FEAR, The first GTA3) but by and large (due to the emergence of the Mainstream games market led by PS2 and it's sequel-centric culture) there hasn't been anything fresh that has tickled my now 'dormant' palate into wanting to become more active again... ...Until I saw Wii :D

Re:Money

[Dravik]

I think you missed the point. The idea is to target different games to different types of players. Money can be made off of every type of gamer but the game design and business model needs to be different. For the dormant gamer who wants to play more but doesn't have the time games with a lot of save points and clearly defined phase lines are needed. That way the dormant gamer can fit in 20 or 30 minutes here and there. Most MMOs today make there money off of casual gamers but are imposable for a dormant gamer to play. For a game targted for a hardcore gamer you probably will want to get them to run their own servers. This is already done with lot the FPS games. Its even marketed as a plus to the gamers.

Ahh, I can see it now...

[Rapter09]

...We'll have World of WarCraft Liesure Edition, World of WarCraft Hardcore Gold Farmer Edition, and World of WarCraft "Dormant Gamer" Edition.What in the sweet hell is "Dormant Gamer?" Is that like coming out of the closet?

Re:Ahh, I can see it now...

[Volante3192]

Dormant Gamers have gone into hibernation waiting for the time the galactic economy is capable of sustaining their exhorbant needs.

Until that time, they pass the time playing SimEarth...

Re:Ahh, I can see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where oh where is SimEarth 2007? I'd come out of dormancy for that, dammit.

Re:Ahh, I can see it now...

[EnsilZah]

I'm a dormant gamer, i just fucking woke up and my friend is expecting me to play an FPS with him.

Re:Ahh, I can see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dormant Gamer:
    A hardcore gamer who got married.

Re:Ahh, I can see it now...

[Amouth]

damn right.. (i know this too well)

Re:Ahh, I can see it now...

[Alchemar]

Liesure edition = normal PVE
dormant gamer = RP PVE
Social gamer = normal PVP
Gold Farmer = whereever the money is at the time
Incidental Gamers = RP PVP


Yep, got it covered.

"My definitions mean I know more than you."

[cmonkey_1973]

First of all, the article truncated to save your precious time:

• Power gamers represent 11 percent of the gamer market but account for 30 cents of every dollar spent on retail and online games.
• Social gamers enjoy gaming as a way to interact with friends.
• Leisure gamers spend 58 hours per month playing games but mainly on casual titles. Nevertheless they prefer challenging titles and show high interest in new gaming services.
• Dormant gamers love gaming but spend little time because of family, work, or school. They like to play with friends and family and prefer complex and challenging games.
• Incidental gamers lack motivation and play games mainly out of boredom. However, they spend more than 20 hours a month playing online games.
• Occasional gamers play puzzle, word, and board games almost exclusively.

I was going to start hacking this to pieces, but it's so obvious I just can't be bothered any more.

Bring us another transparent attempt for an outsider to seem authorative about the games industry, this one's broken.

Re:"My definitions mean I know more than you."

[noidentity]

"First of all, the press release truncated to save your precious time:"

There, I corrected it. Press release = 0 byte file.

Re:"My definitions mean I know more than you."

[antic]

I'm definitely a dormant gamer. I would really like to have the time on top of work, partner and socialising to play more of the PC games I used to (the demos of BF2 and UT2006) and Xbox. Right now, my gaming is restricted to the occasional Halo2 or FIFA night with friends, but that's it.

Sometimes I actually feel like I'm letting game developers down by not making the time to try out their offerings. That said, I've never really bought many games, so I doubt they're all that bothered.

Re:"My definitions mean I know more than you."

[bogjobber]

Bring us another transparent attempt for an outsider to seem authorative about the games industry, this one's broken.

It's not like they're carving these categories in stone. It was a survey put out by a marketing research firm...meaning they are trying to find out more about the market. Their results simply showed that there are other market segments other than casual and hardcore, and that the game industry is missing large opportunities by ignoring these segments. Their categorizations are a little fuzzy, but all market segmentation is inherently arbitrary. It's hardly a ridiculous idea.

I was going to start hacking this to pieces, but it's so obvious I just can't be bothered any more.

What made you hate the article so much? Because I can't really see why you think it's so terrible. It's not great by any means, but it's not horrible either. It seems to me like you're just trolling, with a little bit of karma whoring thrown in.

Re:"My definitions mean I know more than you."

[Gorath99]

What made you hate the article so much? Because I can't really see why you think it's so terrible. It's not great by any means, but it's not horrible either. It seems to me like you're just trolling, with a little bit of karma whoring thrown in.

Not the O.P. and I didn't even RTFA, but going by the descriptions given by the O.P., it seems like according to these categories, if you play mainstream games you're either playing out of boredom, or you want to be challenged.

That seems completely off to me. About half the gamers I know who have a job, who are serious students, or who otherwise don't have a lot of spare time play games to relax. Where do they fit in?

Speaking for myself, I'm certainly not bored. I've got more stuff to do than I have time for. When I play games, I do so to have a good time and relax. I want to have to put some effort into the thing, but I certainly don't want to be challenged. In what category would that put me?

Re:"My definitions mean I know more than you."

[tygerstripes]

Yes, those definitions do suck. Some innovative guy has gone "Maybe we're missing an opportunity here by assuming gamers fall into two categories" - fair enough - and then some firm has done a load of statistical dog-work to corroborate his theory.

Only it's just that - a theory, as embryonic and flawed as any initial bright idea that has yet to be properly researched. No doubt if he'd come up with 20 categories, the statistics could fit those just as well. This is hardly proof, is it?

Example? I'm definitely a gamer, and definitely fit into none of those categories. I love complex and challenging games, especially the latest FPS, RTS, novel non-genre, whatever. I prefer to play solo - I don't mind online games, but only as a way to extend the life-span of a perfectly enjoyable single-player. However, I probably buy about 4 new games a year, often that have recently entered the budget-titles stage (because I don't have that much money), and I play games for less than 10 hours a week because I just don't have the time.

Too much of a life to be a Power Gamer, too solo for Social, too indifferent about "new services" (what the hell is that supposed to mean?) for Leisure, too interested and deliberate to be Incidental, and who would seriously class and Occasional as a gamer? I might possibly fit into Dormant, but who wants to play with family/friends when gaming is an escape?

Okay, so I'm just one example, but anyone could've come up with a better list off-the-bat than the normal 2 categories, and followed it up by fitting the statistics. Why don't they consider doing the research first, and then trying to fit categories to the obvious correlations?

Re:"My definitions mean I know more than you."

[Aladrin]

They forgot 1 type, though... The aging, frustrated gamer. At 29 years, I'm finding I like the beginning of the game... Casual, leisurely part where you mostly just have fun and get to know how things work. Once I get to the 'hard for the sake of hard' parts, I lose interest.

Even FINDING a game worth playign is getting hard. I borrowed a friend's x360 (friends don't let friend play xbox... -sigh-) and he had Ninety Nine Nights. I -love- Dynasty/Samurai warriors. It's one of the few games I play more than 20 hours before getting bored when a new one comes out. NNN gets stupidly hard right away. The bosses are just a constant 'attack, attack, jump back.' If you try anything else, you die. I made it a few levels in before an area with 2 bosses in a row frustrates me until I quit.

I also bought Kameo (as a gift back, for letting me borrow the box) and it's better, but still pretty boring. Every new plot twist means the same thing... 'Use the new elemental you just got to pass the next area.' -yawn- There have been no 'neat' puzzles or anything. It's all just pretty straight forward. Even the hint system gets bored. (A remarkable insight by the devs, I'd say.)

I'm actually considering giving him back the box early. An entire game system with nothing for me! Amazing.

Anyhow, they're missing the 7th market almost totally... The Frustrated Gamer. Bring on the fun-for-the-sake-of-fun games! (I'm hoping the Wii is our console, but I'm not holding my breath.)

Dormant Gamers

[MadLep]

Dormant Gamers - Finally! A vague meaningless stereotype that actually fits me!

Coming soon...

[Mr EdgEy]

Windows Vista Casual Edition Windows Vista Leisure Edition Windows Vista X-TREME ...

Used to play ...

[anagama]

I used to play and buy a lot of games. I'm from the Sierra Games generation though and maybe I just got older, but I find it hard to really get into games anymore. Once a year I'll pull out my Windows ME CD and install Civilization Call to Power -- play it for a week then go back to living. When I was in my teens and 20s, I played Deathtrack or Wing Commander till my joysticks wore out - every Leisure Suit Larry - tons of others I can't even remember. Now however, if I play a shooter on my PS2 for 30 minutes, my wrist and forearm aches for two days. I've tried adventure puzzle games but mostly, they are only modertately good -- something to do if there is nothing else to do and it barely costs anything. It's hard to find really compelling games that a fogey like me can play .... well, I'm only 37 but I can't take the repetitive game pad pounding anymore. And at $30-50 a pop, it's hard to justify the risk of buying something you can't return.

Civilization is cool for me because it takes some thinking, is quite entertaining, but doesn't cause issues with hand overuse. It's a hard formula to match. Recently I tried Pirates of Carribean which seemed cool at first, but somehow just didn't capture my attention and hold it. Anyway, I imagine coming up with a game for people like me would be really hard to do successfully ... and then we'd just buy that one game and play it for many years as I've done with Civ-CTP which makes it hard for game companys to justify the development expense.

Re:Used to play ...

[rackhamh]

I played Deathtrack or Wing Commander till my joysticks wore out - every Leisure Suit Larry

Yeah, I played Leisure Suit Larry until my joystick wore out, too.

Re:Used to play ...

[Ruie]

Civilization is cool for me because it takes some thinking, is quite entertaining, but doesn't cause issues with hand overuse. It's a hard formula to match.

Civilization is probably the only game with both graphics and moderately sophisticated AI and having random maps that actually matter.

In most other graphical games either AI is non-existent, or trained on a small set of maps - often both.

Why there is no fantasy-themed game with sophistication of Civ is beyond me..

Re:Used to play ...

[humble.fool]

Windows ME? That game must be God-like to command that sort of sacrifice!

Re:Used to play ...

[anagama]

Sadly, ME is the only windows disc I have and to be fair, when I'm done playing I de-install windows. I usually do this when I put together a new machine. After I'm done with my civ fix, it gets whatever linux distro I'm presently liking.

Re:Used to play ...

[Jonsey]

If you're looking for a up-to-date game of cheap cost, and great value, look at finding a $20 copy of Sid's "Pirates" It's only got moderate replay value, but you will be very blissfully addicted, and a $20, it was well worth the money spent.

Re:Used to play ...

[sqlrob]

What about Master of Magic?

Re:Used to play ...

[Stormwatch]

if I play a shooter on my PS2 for 30 minutes, my wrist and forearm aches for two days.

In case you haven't noticed, the problem is not you, it's the PS2 controller. That thing SUCKS! Its bizarre shape with the huge handles, the d-pad chopped in four, the position of the analogs that make you twist your wrists -- I just can't stand that shit! And most third-party controllers mimick every one of these problems.

Want a controller that won't cripple your hands? Get a Dreamcast. Dirt cheap, tons of nice games.

Re:Used to play ...

[anagama]

I tried that one too last winter -- worked great in Cedega BTW ... but after about a month or so, I lost interest. I don't think I'll play it much more in the future. The clever part about Civilization is that it has remained interesting for many many years, although as I mentioned before, I only play it once a year (it becomes too much of a time sink if I don't de-install -- the whole "have to reinstall windows to play it" is sufficiently painful that it keeps me from wasting my life on it completely).

Re:Used to play ...

[Dun Malg]

What about Master of Magic?

If only they'd make an updated version. To this day it is still part of my Unholy Triumverate of Ancient DOS Games:

Master of Magic, Master of Orion II, and X-Com: UFO

Re:Used to play ...

[CronoCloud]

That huge bulky monstrosity of a controller used by the Dreamcast was obviously the inspiration for the X-Box controller. And they both suck, truly. I've always blamed that dumb controller in part for the Dreamcast's demise. only Sega fanboys loved it, everyone else hated it. It's too big, the analog stick isn't very good and the action buttons feel all wrong.

And now of course, the X-box's biggest fans are ex-dreamcasters.

The dual shock is the best overall compromise in controller design, it's not perfect (I'd prefer a SNES style un-segmented D-pad myself), but it works.

Re:Used to play ...

[BenjyD]

Agreed, the PS2 controller is terrible. Why did they put the analogue sticks so far down the controller?

The most comfortable controller I've used is the Nintendo Wavebird, I think the 360 controller looks similarly comfortable as well.

Re:Used to play ...

[dremspider]

I will take a stab at the reason. Civs tech tree is complicated and having some prior knowledge to what each does helps a lot. What will happen if I discover say masonry, I can build walls that makes sense. Many people have a basic understanding of history this helps immensly in understanding an already complex game. The units are the same thing. Most people relatively educated will understand that pikemen were designed to take down people on horses, so the fact that it has a bonus against horses in civ makes sense. Each technology does as one would expect in a game of civ, and each unit acts as one would expect from real world knowledge. The same can be said about the strategic resources. I discover oil and I instantly know that it is going to help power vehicles of some sort.

        Concepts work the same as well. Missionaries spread religion, but why would I want to spread religion? In civ countries with the same religion as you like you more. You also get money from these countries. The wonders in the game for the most part are what the player would expect if they know anything of that time period.

        The point is, prior knowledge helps take a significant edge off of the game. Imagine a game where you research something that is completely foreign to most players. Is a unicorn a good unit? What can I use to counter magic spells? What research should I go for when my options are mana power and fairy farming? The game would require a lot more figuring out of what is in the game to be playable. Most players would need to learn brand new concepts that the player has little to no prior knowledge of.

          Civ is a complex game, no one would argue that. The fact that everything acts as the player expects helps take the learning curve very far down.

          Another benefit is that players learn some history while playing.

Re:Used to play ...

[delinear]

The Wavebird is very comfortable, the 360 controller I find to be even more so. MS seem to be able to hit the mark with their user input devices, I've always found their Mice and Keyboards excellent (even at the much higher prices they charge) and the joypads (with the exception of the initial Xbox pad - which was a step in the right direction but way too big and heavy) are spot on.

Not just the positioning of the buttons and sticks, the quality is great and the weighting is perfect. A wireless controller with a (fairly heavy) rechargable battery pack could have been a disaster if the weighting was wrong, if it was off centre it would put unecessary strain on the hand, but the 360 controller is a joy to use wirelessly, for hours at a time.

Re:Used to play ...

[Ruie]

What about Master of Magic?

It was nice, but I did not find the AI challenging enough. Some silly moves were too easy to spot and exploit over and over again.

In Civ, playing on a deity level is always chancy, requires attention, and I often cannot win if I am not on an island.

Re:What is a Dormant Gamer?

[aweinert]

Without RTFA, I would say someone like me.... I played N64 then PC games all the time (more or less hardcore gamer, but without the money to spend on an expensive rig). Then my senior year in highschool I stopped playing most games except for a few here and there (b/c of extensive school work and other interests). This has continued through college. I am however considering purchasing spore, but I don't want to have to reboot everytime I want to play it (I use linux, which is now a tertiary reason I don't do much gaming.)

Extra dimensions

[w33t]

...there aren't just 2 gamer markets, but instead a whopping 6.

What is this, game-string theory?

Re:Extra dimensions

[WilliamSChips]

All I need is a good time-travel adventure and I'll have scored the big SG-1 trifecta!

Re:Extra dimensions

[nude-fox]

man i laughed so hard at that i dont even know why

Re:Extra dimensions

[TempeTerra]

No, if it were there would have to be an alternative universe where Duke Nukem Forever actually exists ;)

Re:Extra dimensions

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel so nerdy for laughing at the GP's comment.

"Design" & "Marketing" - Meet Capt. Ovious

[d'fim]

"Social Gamers, Leisure Gamers, Dormant Gamers, Incidental Gamers"

In other words, people who don't spend money on games.

So TFA is about how the publishers "just" need to figure out how to create games which are good enough to sell to non-buyers.

If only the publishers had thought of this themselves . . .

Re:"Design" & "Marketing" - Meet Capt. Ovious

[Anonymous Coward]

"Social Gamers, Leisure Gamers, Dormant Gamers, Incidental Gamers"

In other words, people who don't spend money on games.

So TFA is about how the publishers "just" need to figure out how to create games which are good enough to sell to non-buyers.

If only the publishers had thought of this themselves . . .

I wouldn't say that these people (necessarily) don't buy games as much as I would say that these people do not buy the volumes of games that the more traditional gaming population does. Personally, I'm a pretty good gamer but know of several people who would fall into each of these categories; most of them own a current generation console or handheld but do not buy as many games as I do mainly because there are too few games that actually interest them. My Sister in Law loves all of the Mario Sport/Party/Kart games and will buy just about everyone that comes out; she is a more social gamer and typically only plays videogames when her daughter (or someone else) is around and wants to play games. If Nintendo released twice as many of these Mario games (and maintained their quality) she'd probably buy twice as many games.

The fact is that publishers are trying to make as much money off of the hardcore gaming population as they can; this is a double edged sword because the people who are most likely to be looking for expensive next generation graphics are the hard-core gamers who buy most of your games. If you're spending $10 Million to produce a game that sells 1 Million copies you're starting to run into problems.

Re:"Design" & "Marketing" - Meet Capt. Ovious

[delinear]

According to TFA

Social Gamers, Leisure Gamers, and Dormant Gamers account for 53% of the Internet gamer population and 56% of the retail revenue

So apparently these groups are buying games. It's likely that there are just a hell of a lot of them but they only buy a few games each, which accounts for how they're spending more as a whole than traditional gamers.

Of course, what the article then goes on to do is jump to the conclusion that the reason this huge group is only buying a few games is because games aren't being designed which target them. What it doesn't consider is that, if these people are only playing socially, or are "dormant", maybe they only buy a handful of games because that is all they need. In which case they aren't going to buy more games. I'm not sure how a games developer targets that... probably by selling them content with a recurring charge, or games that are less fulfilling so that you're left wanting more.

Thats why I bought a game cube

[ADRA]

Unlike anything else I saw, I bought a game cube after years and years of being a console hater. Why? Because I've a social gamer and nothing caters to my current gameing interests more than having a few friends coming over to play Mario party or Super Smash Bros, etc.

When the survey says that these groups aren't being catered to, they're not exactly being truthful. There are games produced for social gamers and the other groups. The problem is they're recognized less when propped up against multi-million dollar time killers like Grand Theft Auto. Plus, just because there are gamers of six categories, it doesn't mean there's money to be made. Anyone who isn't in the 'hard-core' demographics are typically not heavy spenders in gaming. Maybe, the supply is already meeting demand. Is the article flamebait, or just oversimplifying the supply/demand balance?

Re:Thats why I bought a game cube

[Hast]

I'd say the PS2 has more games geared towards social "non-gaming". Such as Guitar Hero, Singstar, Buzz and similar games are typically liked by gamers and "non-gamers" alike.

GC games OTOH are often more like normal games. Only with multiple players in mind.

Re:Thats why I bought a game cube

[trdrstv]

To a point I agree. More publishers took a chance on the PS2, because it had a larger install base. In fact If Guitar Hero and Kingdom hearts were multiplatform, I wouldn't have a PS2 now. The PS2 has a larger variety of titles since it was the market leader, however the Gamecube does have more 'Arcade Style' titles than PS2 or X-Box, which make it easy to pickup and play with just about anyone.

This gen broke down to: PS2 - for single player games, GameCube - For arcade style games, and X-Box for Online games.

Just further proof

[Hawthorne01]

that the Wii will dominate this Christmas season.

Casual Gamers, Hardcore Gamers, Social Gamers, Leisure Gamers, Dormant Gamers and Incidental Gamers.

The Wii, with it's groundbreaking controllers, is going to *own* at least 2 of those markets. I consider myself a dormant gamer: Mashing buttons isn't fun for me anymore, I grew up with a Colecovision and never got past the SNES. But I'm excited for the Wii, and my three-year old will be getting one for Christmas. No, not me, it's for the kids, honey. Really.

And then there's social gamers. Being able to watch what another person does and learn from and criticize their actions rather than just sit there and mash buttons will be *huge*. Why do you think there's always a crowd around the DDR machines? It's the most social game in any arcade.

The PS/3 looks like they'll be lucky to get the Hardcore Gamer market. And the XBox? Next year's garage sale fodder.

Re:Just further proof

[badboy_tw2002]

Wow! For being out of the console game for so long, your sure pick up the role of "your system sux!" trolling fanboi pretty well!

Sorry, knee jerk reaction for when I see "I haven't played games in 20000 years since I was frozen by the glacier - back when I was young it was Hoop n' Stick or Ball-in-a-Cup - But I plan on buying a Wii --- therefore the Wii will be the #1 selling system on Earth, as I, ancient unfrozen caveman gamer and slashdot reader am the average consumer so I have a say in this. Also I asked my friend Throrac who was also in the glacier (he has a negative /. id) and he's getting it too, so I guess that seals it."

Anyways, back to the actual article - where do online gamers work in that crowd? Social? Casual? The Wii won't be launching with any online, so take them out.

And you glossed over hardcore, even though that's what drives system sales at launch time. Are they not important?

I'm not sure why people equate "nintendo" + "new input device"="casual gamers". A casual game is a SIMPLE game that people KNOW - input doesn't really factor into it. The current term in the industry I've heard batted about is "commodity" - i.e., anyone can make a checkers or Majong clone. It doesn't mean that they aren't fun or lots of people won't play them - I've enjoyed online Risk for hours because getting a real life game together when you're not 12 is a little harder. But I don't see why Wii == casual just because of the pointer. Is it because it costs less? If I have a computer, will I go get a Wii, or play online like I usually do? That's $200 cheaper than buying a Wii. Also, with XBL Arcade and Sony's online service they can import small, simple, cheap casual games just as easily as Nintendo. I really don't see the Wii having an automatic win there.

Re:Just further proof

[Sage Gaspar]

The Wii, with it's groundbreaking controllers, is going to *own* at least 2 of those markets.

But wait, there's more! If we broke it down by gender, ethnicity, nationality, eye color, and left- and right-handedness, the Wii would have cornered a whopping SIX BILLION TEN QUINTILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND FIFTY TWO POINT FIVE markets! Score.

Re:Just further proof

[Abcd1234]

I'm not sure why people equate "nintendo" + "new input device"="casual gamers".

Probably based on a) their success with the DS in attracting new "casual gamers", and b) their stated goal of appealing to same. Whether it'll work, I don't know, but we'll see.

A casual game is a SIMPLE game that people KNOW - input doesn't really factor into it

What?!? A casual game is simple in part *because* of the input scheme. The whole purpose of the Wiimote is to provide a more intuitive interface so people can just pick it up and go, rather than puzzling over if they're supposed to hit triangle or square in order to perform action X.

Ebay it

[rsilvergun]

There's no reason to buy games new if you're a casual player. I've got 60+ ps2 games off ebay. Some have sucked, some have been really good. But at less then $10 dollars a head (many less than $6), I can afford to take some risks.

Well...

[__aaclcg7560]

You can't get any off target than... Duke Nukem Forever! (Shouted in a Duck Dodgers voice, which was a great N64 game.)

Re:Well...

[delinear]

Duke Nukem Forever is the perfect game for dormant gamers. A game that never comes out for people who never play. Now if only developers could nail a way to get them to pay for the privilege of not playing their non-existent game...

2 kinds, 6 kinds, 10 kinds, whatever

[Opportunist]

As long as we get the same games over and over it does not matter in how many niches we split the market. I can be the most hardcore ice hockey gamer, but when I bought the 2005 edition of an ice hockey game, I won't buy the same game again in 2006. When I'm a hardcore shooter fan, I still won't buy two games that run on the same engine and with the same physics. At best, I try to find mappacks for the game I already have.

Re:2 kinds, 6 kinds, 10 kinds, whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

No one's forcing you to. Several hundred games get released each year, about 25% of which are not sequels. You could easily buy a non-sequel game every week for the rest of your life - do you really get through games faster than that?

Not every game released has to be for you. Some people are excited about Madden 2007 - if that really offends you then you need to think about resolving your personal issues.

Who are these people?

[dangitman]

I don't understand how anyone could think in terms something so limited as "two markets" or "six markets." There is an infinite variety of potential customers. This story implies that it is conventional wisdom that there are just two game "markets." I've never heard that before.

Who are these people, and how do they get jobs commenting on such things, when their whole approach to analysis is flawed from the start? What is the benefit to such analysis? Thinking in terms of two markets or six markets can only achive one outcome - limiting innovation and ways of thinking about how to produce games/products.

In reality, customers buy what they want to buy, and try to meet their own needs or desires. Real human beings (you know, the ones who actually buy things) do not think of themselves as "markets."

Re:Who are these people?

[pilkul]

That's all true, but when you do surveys and market analyses you need to divide people into simple categories for statistical purposes. With your vague approach there's no way to make estimates about how many sales you can expect for a given type of game.

Re:Who are these people?

[dangitman]

That's all true, but when you do surveys and market analyses you need to divide people into simple categories for statistical purposes.

Why?

With your vague approach there's no way to make estimates about how many sales you can expect for a given type of game.

How so? If you are doing a survey, ask customers "would you buy this game?" If they say yes, tick a box. Use this to make estimates on how many copies you will sell.

It's a lot less vague than the approach demonstrated here, which involves breaking people up into vague groups, which may or may not exist. There's much more margin for error in assuming that "My game appeals to Demographic X which contains 5 million people" - because Demographic X may not like your game, even as you assume your game fits that market. You are going to get much more precise results if you actually go directly to the people with a description of what your game actually is, rather than marketing mumbo-jumbo that customers don't care about.

Does anybody actually say to themselves "Hey, I'm a part of Demographic X and I love all that Demographic X stuff"?

Re:Who are these people?

[servognome]

Who are these people, and how do they get jobs commenting on such things, when their whole approach to analysis is flawed from the start? What is the benefit to such analysis?

Because it makes communication easier to general audiences. Qualitative terms such as "casual gamer," are applied based on quantitative surveys. The actual marketting data and analysis is based on numbers, but most audiences don't want to hear specifics like "65% of gamers who play 0-5 hours, 45% of gamers who play 5-10 hours, 15% of gamers who play 10-15 hours a week, etc." So the information is condensed into groups such as hardcore gamer, that gives the audience an idea of the market, without the excrutiating details of the numbers.

Thinking in terms of two markets or six markets can only achive one outcome - limiting innovation and ways of thinking about how to produce games/products.

Limitation can also mean focus and predictability. If I am creating a game that I expect will require a dedication of 40+ hours a week, I want to know the size of the market (to create a budget) and what players generally expect (so I don't incorporate fatal flaws in the game design). Does it guarantee success? Of course not, but at least upfront I will avoid any big mistakes that would doom the game from the beginning.

In reality, customers buy what they want to buy, and try to meet their own needs or desires. Real human beings (you know, the ones who actually buy things) do not think of themselves as "markets."

Individual people buy what they want to buy, but that doesn't make the overall population unpredictable.

Re:Who are these people?

[delinear]

You're right, but they're market researchers so it's to be expected. Just be grateful they didn't refer to the long tail of gamers...

Re:Who are these people?

[Kehvarl]

Technically, at any given time, aren't there a maximum of roughly 6 billion unique gamer types? a large number sure, but infinitely smaller than infinity.

Re:Who are these people?

[dangitman]

What about the people of Voonatron 3? I hear they are very keen on games, and there's over 100 billion of them. Still, not infinite, but if the Universe is infinite, then surely the number of gamers is, too?

Re:There are 7 types actually...

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Right, because all female gamers play the same kinds of games for the same reasons.

Gamer Markets.

[The Living Fractal]

I had a nicely drawn ASCII diagram drawn for this until I remembered the lameness of the /. lameness filter. I want my 37 minutes back, CowboyNeal!

Anyway, those aren't gamer markets in any sense of the word market. They are gamer stereotypes or styles. Gamer markets are already well established: Sports, RTS, RPG, MMORPG, FPS, etc etc.

One cannot wisely design a game completely around a style, such as "people who only play games incidentally are really going to like this game". Why spend countless hours developing a game that only a small segment of the consumer market is going to enjoy when you can make a game that the very same segment enjoys equally but is also enjoyed by the REST OF THE F'N MARKET, thus increasing sales tremedously.

I thought the whole idea behind what makes a GOOD game was that every style of player can enjoy it. Not that if you are a 'dormant' or 'hardcore' gamer you won't like it because you aren't also an 'incidental' or 'social' gamer. Remember, behind all these fancy adjectives, these people are still GAMERS.

I hate to bring it up, because it's almost cliché, but WoW is such a game. You can play it casually and like it (unless you are an immature kid who thinks you deserve the same rewards for less time than someone who literally has spent the last two years of their life raiding). We call those people whiners. I think pretty much all other gamers call those people whiners. They're the ones with excuses to explain why they aren't as good as someone else. They're the ones on the forums more than the game, spouting off at the mouth a stream of useless complaints that really only wind up pointing directly back at themselves.

And back to the point. So you make a game trying to satisfy those immature kids. Everyone gets whatever they want. Essentially, nobody is different than anybody else. Wow, I am sure that game is going to really pull in the money.

Anyway, I guess what I am saying is, congrats to the writer of that article. You sure know how to state the obvious in new and wonderful ways.

TLF

Re:Gamer Markets.

[The PS3 Will Fail]

"And back to the point. So you make a game trying to satisfy those immature kids. Everyone gets whatever they want. Essentially, nobody is different than anybody else. Wow, I am sure that game is going to really pull in the money."

Try to take your personal animosity towards WoW players out of the discussion for a moment. (It really has no place here.) I think you're missing the point of what a casual gamer would be considered; it's not just that they play fewer hours than the "hardcore" gamer, it's that their play patterns are significantly different than the hardcore gamer. Fewer hours, maybe but maybe not; the casual gamer is more identified to their commitment to advancing in the game. A hardcore gamer may encounter a section in a game where they have to spend days and days trying to advance. A casual gamer would encounter this same section and leave the game behind entirely.

The best example of a casual gamer does not involve WoW. A great example of a casual gamer is someone who plays Bookworm or Scrabble online. The basic game structure remains the same from play to play. Also...

"Gamer markets are already well established: Sports, RTS, RPG, MMORPG, FPS, etc etc."

Those are genres, not markets.

Re:Gamer Markets.

[The Living Fractal]

"A casual gamer would encounter this same section and leave the game behind entirely."

I completely disagree. A casual game could casually approach the aforementioned task. That it will take them longer (of IRL time, not necessarily play time) to achieve that goal they fully understand.. but that they COULD achieve that goal and not spend an inordinate percentage of their daily life doing so is what makes them casual IMHO.

Regarding your statement that they are genres... I agree. And they're also markets. Each genre represents a segment of consumer economics. Thus, each genre is a separate market within the industry of games in general. But feel free to argue that a genre cannot correlate to a specific market...I have a feeling that we could sift through some economic data that fully and unambigiously fits the definition of market to the definition of each genre by allowing us to differentiate between them.

TLF

Re:There are 7 types actually...

[dorath]

don't forget female gamers.

They didn't.

My wife, and a number of other women in my EQ2 guild, are a mix of Power gamer and Social gamer. They raid 3-4 times a week, but they're mostly in it for the social aspect.

If there isn't a raid scheduled, or the people she'd like to chat with aren't around, or she doesn't feel like mucking around in her in-game appartment, then she'll log out and jump into the puzzle games. Or a romance novel.

Game On

[shoma-san]

There are only 10 types of gamers in the world: Those who understand pwning, and those who don't

Re:Game On

[TheoMurpse]

There are only 10 types of gamers in the world: Those who understand pwning, and those who don't

With the risk of ruining the analogy: There are 1337 types of gamers in the world: those who pwn and those who are pwnt.

Parks Associates: When you want sloppy work

[ChaosDiscord]

Given that the "article" is pretty much a summary designed to convince people to pay for their full research, it's embarassing. Learn to use your graphing software. And perhaps more importantly: don't connect discrete data points with lines. What am I supposed to make of the line between "Social Gamer" and "Dormant Gamer"? That there are hybrids who constitute about 18% of the market? That there are not hybrid Power/Dormant gamers?

Only 6? Please.

[TheNoxx]

I'd count the number way higher than that. I'm surprised there still aren't any games more targeted towards particular cultural groups; so far we have tons for Chinese, Japanese, European, and American cultures, and a few with Russian elements and the one Godfather game (Italian...ish), but none for anyone else, and only ONE based out of the poverty faced by so many black families in the US. Where are the games with disctinctly Chicano roots? Or Hindi? Arabic? Central or South American? I'm particularly surprised there aren't games made especially for the Latino people living in the US; they've been a large part of our heritage for a long time and are continuously playing a more and more important role in the ongoing growth of America. I want to see a historical game about the Mexican fight for independence, or a Jade-Empire style RPG about the growth of the Arabic empire during it's height or the legends of Vishnu. It's about time a game developer got serious and started looking really close at the art and drama experienced inside of the ethnic communities here.

I think it'd be a great way for the game developing community to counter-act the recent explosion of xenophobia in America to publish some games aimed at helping the children of immigrants learn about the US and academic subjects and their homeland's traditions in an interesting manner and preserving their cultural heritage in the way the game is presented. It'd take some serious research and alot of money and effort spent on artistic direction, but would be very, very well worth it.

Re:Only 6? Please.

[aadvancedGIR]

Unfortunately, for companies like EA, there are only 4 kind of gamers:
-stupid shooters
-stupid racers
-stupid ballgamers
-useless sissies

Re:Only 6? Please.

[Cederic]

At risk of starting a flame war, doesn't the GTA franchise recognise different American social groups?

I know those Chicos keep bloody shooting at me!

Re:Only 6? Please.

[PrescriptionWarning]

Prince of Persia covers the Arabic side I believe... and its quite an awesome game to boot

I'm a social gamer.

[ClioCJS]

I wont play 1-player games. At all. Ever. None. Zero Zilch. Nada.

I can't stand watching other people play.

Well, I've played a few 1-player games... Frequency, Amplitude, Grand Theft Auto... Ultima 4... I dunno.

One of my favorite Atari 2600 games is Combat.

I had 3-computer DOOM set up in 1995. I used a BBS that allowed people with modems to play 4-player DOOM for 14 cents an hour.

I prefer 4-player games. I get really pissed off at games that offer me vs. wife via splitscreen, but when we go online, only one of us can go online. Totally ruins the whole point of online if I can't play at the same time as my wife.

Yes. Our choices are limited. I'm glad to finally be identified as a group, but I've said "I'm a social gamer" many times in the past. I've also complained that there aren't a lot of options for couples to play.

Re:I'm a social gamer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wont play 1-player games. At all. Ever. None. Zero Zilch. Nada.

[...]

Well, I've played a few 1-player games... Frequency, Amplitude, Grand Theft Auto... Ultima 4... I dunno.

Your argument seems somehow self-defeating.

Re:I'm a social gamer.

[ClioCJS]

You must be in the debate club. :)

Of course there are exceptions to any rule, so I gave them up front. I generally do not play 1player games. In the past 1,000 hours of gaming, less than 50 hrs have been 1-player games. Happy pappy?

Re:I'm a social gamer.

[WilliamSChips]

I'm mostly the opposite. Because at 90% of games I suck. I usually prefer playing one-player where I can set things to easy and not get killed.

Re:I'm a social gamer.

[Sigma 7]

prefer 4-player games. I get really pissed off at games that offer me vs. wife via splitscreen, but when we go online, only one of us can go online. Totally ruins the whole point of online if I can't play at the same time as my wife.

IIRC, only one game supports that - Serious Sam. It was released for the PC.

There are practical reasons why there's generally no split-screen support for online-play. While it is possible, it means that two clients are linked - one cannot decide to leave without either idling or taking the other player along with the disconnect. (Well, it is possible, but probably will unnecessairly complicate the netcode and client code.)

In addition, it interferes with communication with other online players - you can't talk without letting the other person with you what's going on. While this is resolved by having both of you on the same team, see the above rule about disconnecting - the teams can instantly become lopsided as soon as you disconnect. (e.g. a 6v6 match suddenly becomes a 4v6 - or worse a 5v6 becoming a 3v6. ) While these games heal eventually, it is much more of a shock when two players leave at once when compared to two players leaving within 1 minute or so.

Re:I'm a social gamer.

[ClioCJS]

Sounds like lazy programming to me. Especially considering how common marriage is. That's great marketing: "Buy this box, and you and your wife will spend more time apart." (Well, maybe that works for most people, but I happen to prefer spending time with my wife, who likes pretty much all the same things I do.)

All those other issues you talked about -- would still exist if we bought 2 PS2s and played separately in the same room. It's not truly a function of split-screen, it is a function of being in the same room as the other player.

And netcode? Wah wah! That's definitely lazy programming. Considering the server end handles multiple connections!

Oh well -- score one for co-op / head-to-head games (which I don't really like that much; I prefer deathmatch, but Timesplitters: Future Perfect was fun, and I look forward to someday getting around to playing We Love Katamari. And if only my back injury would heal I would be playing DDR every day again.)

Ooooh man! I can't believe you said that!

[Ahnteis]

Ooooh man! I can't believe you said that!

Had to be said. ;)

That said, I am a "hard core" gamer AND a social gamer. There are lots of games that play well as gropu games -- like playing "board" games or other traditional games. :)

4 segments make no money

[hellfire]

Almost everyone plays games to a certain extent. Not everyone plays a game that can make significant money. The market isn't ignoring them, they just don't make money.

People like Blizzard are focused on the hardcore and casual gamers because they pay for new mega graphic video games at $50 a pop. That's a higher margin business.

Segments they call the "occasional gamer" and "social gamer" are fulfilled by places like pogo.com, yahoo games, and other places. I also feel the occasional games is mislabelled because there used to be times in my life I'd do nothing but crosswords or playing word whomp on Pogo and foregoing my Warcraft CDs. There is almost no money in crosswords, but people continue to do them and they will do so for a long time because they are a great mental challenge. It's better to call these "classic gamers." Games that make little money but have a long venerable tradition, like chess, spades, hearts, and poker (yes you can make money playing poker, but you don't make a lot of money selling poker cards and accessories).

These segments are served, they are just served by different companies. Blizzard isn't going to make any real money by starting a hearts server, and it's not what they are good at so there's no point in trying. The article didn't bother to actually think about what already serves those segments.

Fjords

[Savage-Rabbit]

Dormant Gamers have gone into hibernation waiting for the time the galactic economy is capable of sustaining their exhorbant needs.

Until that time, they pass the time playing SimEarth...

Pesky little buggers aren't they? My cat caught one this morning and ate it. I suppose Africa won't have any fjords the next time around.

In my childhoot we...in the snow...

[bussdriver]

Back in my childhood we had to call friends on a phone (no email, no cell phone) then they would have to walk miles in the snow just to play a few games. Often, we would go without food to keep playing.

We didnt start out on video games, we just had exciting board or card games when attention spans had to last more than 2.5 seconds.

To find how to pass a level or cheat, you would have to talk to other kids to find codes. Our cheat codes did not require some add on device(that came later): up up down down left right left right B A start...

Almost no games could save, so you would have to remember codes or start over each time. Save areas were few if there were any and made that walk in the snow seem much easier...

We didn't have a stupid dance mat. We had a power pad on which we played track and field, getting bumps and bruises-- none of this polite footsy simon says.

1 player games involved sharing (its like kazaa but takes effort.)

Some of us learned to talk smack and exchanged new words at these social gatherings as well.

Re:In my childhoot we...in the snow...

[Anonymous Coward]

That cheat code belongs to Contra.... I feel dirty..

Re:In my childhoot we...in the snow...

[KDR_11k]

You mean you never played Gradius?

Yay for Spore

[EvilMoose]

I hope Will Wright doesn't mess up Spore. It hits every single market.

Recovered Gamer

[saskboy]

I'm a recovered gamer. Having spent hundreds of hours on Doubleback, Kings Quest, Game Boy, Doom, Quake, Carmageddon, and UT since I was 5, I haven't spent more than 20 hours on video games in the last 4 years.

What kind of game do they make to lure me back?

Re:Recovered Gamer

[deviceb]

FEAR is a free multiplayer download now. It's fast paced like UT was. try that
gamengame.com has a bunch of decent stuff.

Re:Recovered Gamer

[tomservo84]

Having spent hundreds of hours on Doubleback

Doubleback...as in the game on the Color Computer? I *LOVED* that game...I wish a similar game with it's simplicity and addictiveness would be available on the PC.

Orpahn SWG

[Beer_Smurf]

I have a observed a huge number of orphan SWG players, myself included, who cannot find the game they are looking for. A diverse demographic that enjoyed the "World" that they had created are now lost without an imaginary world to dwell in.

Definitions

[Alchemar]

NO, the ariticle does not describe what the different catagory of gamers are. Unless your accepted definition of leisure gamer IS "11% of the market" they go into no detail about how this is catorized. For the poster to make the statement that the artilce contains this information iplies to me that the poster knows the information that the aritcle is about, and probably reads the information in without thinking. This also implies to me that the poster has something to do with writing the article.

Re:Definitions

[Fearless Freep]

These days even submitters don't RTFA

heheheh

[ClioCJS]

But losing is how you learn to play good. If you always win, you have nothing to learn. That's interesting though. Always good to know what motivates "the other side".

But party games are so lite, the point is to have fun, not to win. Fusion Frenzy, Shrek Party, Muppets Party Cruise, Pac Man party, etc, etc. Or DDR. Or racing games where you both have steering wheel controllers at once. Or strategy games (I recommend Culdcept). Must stop. Nyquil getting to me.

Re:heheheh

[WilliamSChips]

Sure, always winning becomes boring, but always losing(along the lines of dying five seconds in) gets boring too.

There's not 6.. There's

[kinglink]

Either 2 or 3 million or what ever the population of earth is now. Any time you have groups you'll always have room for more. that's why for a while we had libertarian Democrats and Conservative democrats and such.

The simple fact is there really is two. Casual gamers and "serious" gamers. The casual gamer is a gamer who spends 10 bucks on a game some one who doesn't actually game as a hobby, but more as a "oh that's fun" idea. Then there's the "serious gamer" They are the ones who will buy video game systems, and upgrade computers for games.

Sure there's people who are both or neither but honestly all the subdivisions are dealt with in other areas.

In reality there's 4 type of gamer also. The Explorer, the Socializer, the Competitor, and the achiever. There pretty obvious (explore the whole map, Chat while playing, Beat others, beat goals). But the fact is when you build a game you try to target them all. The base fact though is these 4 have nothing to do with the casual or serious. It's just another way to categorize people.

The 6 idea works but in the end people will realize there's only two main catagories and these are just subdivisions of them.

Re:There's not 6.. There's

[cgenman]

There are far more / less than 2 categories, unless your categories are "likely to like this game" and "unlikely to like this game." There are people with lots of time. People with little time. People with a mature view of that particular genre. People who are just picking up that genre for the first time. People who would be offended by sexuality in games. People who would be attracted by it. People who want to race virtual cars. People who want to shoot virtual guns. People who crave new and original designs. People who need familiar designs to feel comfortable playing. People who have to make sure the games their playing are girlfriend / boyfriend / child friendly. People who need a complex escape from a simple life. People who need a simple escape from a complex life.

The list goes on and on.

Quite frankly, if I hear another publisher say "yes, but how does your game draw in the casual gamer," I'm going straight to Capcom. What Does That Even Mean?

Gamefly

[briancnorton]

I found myself in the same spot. There is however a solution that has worked nicely for me. Gamefly is a netflix-esque service for games. I think a 1-at-a-time plan is like $15 month. Beats the heck out of constantly buying new games that will likely suck, or paying blockbuster $9 to rent one of their 15 games. My wife and I are rather particular about our games, and it's great to play them for a bit and be done with them.

every gamer

[Anonymous Coward]

I think every gamer is unique and special and cannot be categorized, yay.

Re:every gamer

[Shilkanni]

Each and every gamer is a beautiful and unique snowflake.

No there's 2 types

[Anonymous Coward]

There are the types of gamers who play games, but don't do so to the point of obsession.

Then, there are the gamers who would rather (and do) game so much they never actually learn proper english, and who-knows-what-else, type of gamers.

Way to lower the bar, bro!

I recommed

[Frightening]

that the market analysts try to stay as dormant as possible, so that incidental reports like this don't ruin their employers.

Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

A small number of general categories can be split into a larger number of more specific categories. Film at 11.

They're ignoring the 7th segment.

[rice_burners_suck]

The Seventh Segment. That almost sounds like a good name for a game, doesn't it? Perhaps I'm thinking of The Seventh Guest. But I digress... This elusive seventh segment of the gaming market is people like me: Non-gamers. And believe it or not, it is the largest segment of this market. Please allow me to explain: People who have nothing better to do with their time than being a gamer are seriously a bunch of lusers. I can think of a zillion better things to do than waste my time screwing with the joystick on a gaming console. Like having a social life, for crying out loud. So where is a video game targeted to people like me? I would say that when you buy this game, it should be an empty box. No game inside. So you can look cool buying it, but you don't have to waste your time with it afterwards. They could sell this game in bars, and just add it to your bar tab. When people are drunk, they'll gladly buy it.

Re:They're ignoring the 7th segment.

[Cederic]

1 - non-gamers are no longer the largest segment of the market
2 - social gamers ARE having a social life
3 - how is getting drunk in a bar more fulfilling than engaging in interactive challenging entertainment?

Irony...

[stickyc]

It means that game developers and publishers are ignoring a large portion of the gaming market by focusing on the traditional two segments: casual gamers and hardcore gamers.

Oh, and also there's female gamers, but there's apparently no money to be made there.

Re:Irony...

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

Oh, and also there's female gamers, but there's apparently no money to be made there.

Yeah, that's been tried. Remember that company, wassercalled ... Nintendo! Yeah. Pulled a Sony, poor fools...

Re:Irony...

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

Pulled a Sony, poor fools...

Uh, that was meant to read "Pulled a Sega". Must be a freudian slip or something. ;-)

I thought I was the only one

[khallow]

I did that too with Civilization. Currently, Starcraft is the only thing between my Windows ME system and certain doom, er for my Windows ME system.

Re:I thought I was the only one

[miro f]

starcraft should work fine under wine, not sure about civ though.

maybe you don't need that windows me disc after all

Re:I thought I was the only one

[khallow]

Yea. I'm considering that ax. Still need to install wine though. Civ probably would work, if I still had it.

huh

[khallow]

I suppose this is an improvement over what *kind* of game you'd like to play. After all, everyone likes the exact same thing, they just don't have the same time requirements for it. And let's face it, Grand Theft Auto, Mines, SimCity, or Barbie Fashion Show, it's all the same game, just with slightly different time requirements and socialization.

Why this isn't a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pareto principle states that 80% of the outcome comes from 20% of the effort. Why would video game companies try to capture these other targets when it will only 20% more revenue? Working 400% harder (the 80%) to gain 20% revenue isn't good business.

Social Gaming: SWG

[Telepathetic Man]

The social gaming aspect of Star Wars Galaxies was great. They had four master-able professions that actually specialized in it before they threw it all away. I still don't understand their reasonings of getting rid of the entertainer aspect of the game. What a waste of code that drew a large crowd which I think was the glue that held it all together.

book gamer?

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Where is the "Book Gamer," or other similar gamer? I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who doesn't play games for random nudity, violence, explosions, guns, sci-fi, mechs, and other themes which magically turn "childish" games into "mature" games.

I want storyline-driven games -- SNES era RPGs, Dragon Quests, a REAL Final Fantasy (not Nomura's horrible pop-culture Final Fantasies), and maybe some Lufia or Disgaea in there. Game companies have all but forgotten our kind everywhere outside of Japan. There's still plenty of us out here -- RPGs were huge on the NES and SNES -- but we have to rely on fan translations, or raw Japanese versions of games like Ys, Arc the Lad, and the once-every-three-to-four-years Dragon Quest.

Re:book gamer?

[CronoCloud]

There's hordes of RPG's and strategy RPG's on the PS2 that aren't Final Fantasy. All those Nipon Ichi games, all the Atlus games, Grandia's, Legaia's, Wild Arms, heck you can even make your own with RPG Maker.

Re:book gamer?

[trongey]

...random nudity, violence, explosions, guns, sci-fi, mechs...

Dang! Where can I get a copy of that one?

competitive puzzle games are more social

[cogno64]

If you have an objective measure of something, like what's your IQ? (OK that's not completely objective) where lots of people can participate and see the results - that's social think of swinging the sledge hammer at the amusement park and trying to hit the bell with the puck -that's social because a crowd forms. Games need to offer a like kind of experience, particularly ranking/rating games Like, for example, measuring the processor speed of your brain

Success of super smash bros

[scwizard]

The reason why Super Smash Bros and Halo and such are such great sellings is because they're really fun to play split screen with your friends, single player, and (when SSB brawlers comes out) over the internet.

An overlooked market

[Belgand]

Oddly my girlfriend falls into an interesting, but ignored market. She'll play (often intensely) and enjoy games, but she rarely seeks out or purchases them on her own. Sure she's bought a few (Dungeon Siege, Warcraft III, Diablo II, X-Men Legends, etc.) but mainly only after after I got her interested or showed her a demo or she played my copy or something. Many times she's be heavily interested in a game, but often they're games that I bought rather than that she bought or influenced the purchase of in any way.

This classification, though, reveals its own flaw: they don't tend to buy their own games very often and they don't tend to follow gaming news enough that marketing to them is rather challenging. Still, I've seen that anecdotally this is a a large enough group that it warrants consideration. Perhaps marketing to gamers in such a way as to get them to influence others or be influenced by others in their purchases. If there's a good game that we can play together and would both be interested in (e.g. X-Men Legends, since we prefer co-op and are both big X-Men fans) there's a much greater chance that it can be sold to me. The same goes for the Harvest Moon series which, while I find it interesting and bought it mainly for myself, she went through a period of obsession with that would cause me to purchase other games for her.

The Sims

[G3ckoG33k]

Since it came out The Sims was probably the most unexpected game to become a huge success. Who would have thought that, a game for girls? Most new games seem adapted for boys. My wallet and my daughters vote go for more really good girl games.

Controller size

[Z34107]

I hate it when people whine about a controller being too big. My hands, although not monstrous, seem to be larger than average - Gamecube controllers hurt. I loved the Dreamcast and Xbox controllers because they felt comfortable, and have to buy mice large enough so that my index and middle fingers don't drag across the mousepad.

What would be nice is what Microsoft did - release the regular Xbox controller and the "mini" version for people with scrawny, insignificant digits.

Semi-dormant

[kreyg]

Well, I'm a semi-dormant gamer. I make them for a living, but because of that and family pressure don't really have time to play them nearly as much as I used to.

I've spent a lot more time in PC FPS's than most other genres, mostly because they're easy to get into and out of, you can save anywhere, and the kids find them much more interesting than, say, an RTS or text-heavy RPG.

Lego Star Wars has been a fabulous game for this segment I think - good for the entire family, great co-op mode, not terribly demanding on time, and just plain fun. If more games were as accessable as that one there would be a whole new market to sell to.

I'm going to watch the Wii with great interest, because that's exactly who they're trying to sell to. I wasn't terribly interested at first, until it occurred to me that it wasn't for me, it was for my family, and then it just sounded like a whole lot of fun.

Re:Semi-dormant

[boot1973]

I'm going to watch the Wii with great interest, because that's exactly who they're trying to sell to. I wasn't terribly interested at first, until it occurred to me that it wasn't for me, it was for my family, and then it just sounded like a whole lot of fun.

I totally agree with this.. i have a young family and although i enjoy (PC) games they are either too violent or too difficult for my kids to play. I have high hopes that when the Wii arrives i will be able to spend many happy hours with my 5 year old playing really good family games. I do wonder if i would have even contemplated buying a Wii if it wasn't for the kids.

P.S. I have a PS2 gathering dust somewhere, maybe i should fish it out and get a copy of Lego Star Wars to see how we go.

Re:Semi-dormant

[kreyg]

P.S. I have a PS2 gathering dust somewhere, maybe i should fish it out and get a copy of Lego Star Wars to see how we go.

We got Lego Star Wars for the PC sortly after it came out a year and a half ago. It's still the 5-year-old's favorite game, and the 3-year-old is starting to get it figured out (and starting to compete for play time - fortunately they have their own PC). I spent many late nights myself unlocking everything after they went to bed. :-)

Lego Star Wars II is out in a couple weeks, we'll be picking it up for sure.

I call Bullshit

[Scrameustache]

Those 4 "new" categories are just subsets of "casual".
Just like how "hardcore" includes "RPG gamer", "retro sidescroller high scoring gamer", etc.

Also, they state an erroneous opinion regarding social gaming as consesus, and then say that the survey surprinsingly contradicted that "fact".
Since I remember growing up going to my friends to play many generations of console and computer games, I never once believed that "fact" of theirs. There's no reason to keep it alive the way they do since they keep seeing surveys that discard their opinion.

Developers can't hit their marks?

[sydlexius]

Isn't it obvious? If the developers would embrace the hacker community and use an aimbot, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

Re:There are 7 types actually...

[CrackedButter]

Did you here that Whoosh sound, moderators and viewers, that's the joke going over your heads.

Recognise the 2 seperate parties

[Anonymous Coward]

Game developers are hitting their target pretty much every time; a game that the publisher will pay for.

Game publishers are the ones who staying on the same old safe genres.

I'm a dormant gamer!!!

[mlopes]

Not that I've read the description of what's a dormant gamer, but beeing me an ex-gamer (not much of an hardcore but a frequent gamer) that nowadays barely play anything cause I'm sick and tired of the same games with a new name over and over...
As soon as I get my hands on a game that's worth my time, here I go... :D

Re:There are 7 types actually...

[kria]

... and the mentality that you lampooned there is how we end up with "pink" games, ones that are aimed by those that feel that all gamers want something touchy feely with pretty costumes and romance.

I'll go back to my real-time strategy games now, or my current passion, Puzzle Pirates. Actually, while I could be wrong (since it's just observation), it DOES seem like Puzzle Pirates attracts a higher percentage of women. Perhaps because it's an online game that doesn't have skin showing. I know that I also like the fact that while I can, I don't HAVE to dedicate at least four hours a session to play.

Oh, and if you hadn't guessed, I'm a female gamer.

hmm

[rabbot]

I guess I'm a dormant gamer with hardcore gamer spending habits...I still buy all the games like I did when I had more time than I knew what to do with, but now half of them sit unfinished.

This is why...

[TemporalBeing]

This is why Nintendo will make a killing in the market when they release the Wii - they're not marketing to the 'traditional' gamers - but rather to everyone else.

Now I'm not sure if I would fully agree with only 6 types, but regardless the idea presented here is exactly why Nintendo will be huge, and take the lead with Microsoft and Sony sitting in second and third (which order I don't know, likely Microsoft will take second due to price; though I don't like the XBox series).

Any how...just food for thought. November will be a teller.

Re:There are 7 types actually...

[ElleyKitten]

Right, because all female gamers play the same kinds of games for the same reasons.

I think the "secret" of getting women to play games is to not turn them off. For example, if you make a game series that's fairly popular with women (Final Fantasy) when you finally make one where the lead charactor is female (X-2), don't stick her in skanky shorts and a shirt cut down to her waist (not that that was the only problem in X-2). Female gamers do play all sorts of games, but I get really annoyed at games that assume I'm a 25 year old boy.

Uhh, no

[brkello]

All the other variants of gamers they come up with are stuff I would still classify with the casual gamer. This leaves the hardcore gamer, the casual gamer, and the people who don't game. The ignored market is the people who don't game....and why would you target that market?

Re:There are 7 types actually...

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

I am a 33 year old male, and one of my favorite games that I recently replayed was "Beyond Good and Evil" which, for those who haven't played it, stars Jade. A strong, independant female character who is attractive (albiet cartoony), witty, and could not be further from 'cheesecake'.

Special deal: 6 for the price of 1!

[Morrigu]

Soooo:

I've bought a lot of games sometimes - up to 8 titles per quarter - and can get really involved with mods/tweaks/custom maps for a particular game (Doom, Starcraft, Civ2, NWN, Morrowind, WoW); therefore I am (or have been) a power gamer!

I like to hang out and chat with random people in online games, and I've played a lot of multiplayer sports/FPS/fighting games (Madden, Halo, Street Fighter 2) with friends while we're hanging out; therefore I am (or have been) a social gamer!

I've spent lots of time playing "casual" titles (Bejeweled, Tetris, Puzzle Pirates, arrr!) and enjoy new, different games, especially ones that make me think in a new way; therefore I am (or have been) a leisure gamer!

There are often times where I can't spend more than 2-3 hours a week playing games, or when I choose to spend my free time on something other than manipulating bits on a display, yet I still enjoy gaming; therefore I am (or have been) a dormant gamer!

I've spent months playing specific games (WoW, Civ2, Civ3) just to have something to occupy my time with, even though it wasn't always terribly fun (although rambling on in the glorified chat client that is WoW is a good way to pass the time); therefore I am (or have been) an incidental gamer!

And I like playing Boggle, Scrabble and Monopoly too. Okay, so I don't play these on computers or consoles since I've always had 'em around in their physical incarnations, and they're easier to play with your friends + family face-to-face that way. But I'll also claim to be (or have been) an occasional gamer!

Yeah...

[ClioCJS]

I hear that a lot. But... practice makes perfect! :) Try some less-intelligent bots to work your way up. (Hey, that's technically 1-player!)