Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Game Developers Missing Their Target?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Aug 30, 2006 05:41 PM
from the varying-levels-of-addiction dept.
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • WTF difference is their between a "Casual Gamer" and a "Leisure Gamer"?
    • Ughh... my grammar sucks.

      Anyways, about 4 or 5 of these "new" categories fall under the "casual" banner.
      • Re:Splitting hairs (Score:5, Insightful)

        by complexmath (449417) * on Wednesday August 30 2006, @06:11PM (#16011720)
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          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
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by 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.
      • by toolie (22684) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @06:14PM (#16011737)
        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: (Score:2, Informative)

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

      Lots of polyester in the closet?
  • 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).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2006, @05:51PM (#16011586)
    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?
    • by amuro98 (461673) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @06:01PM (#16011657)
      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.
    • 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 gam
    • 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
    • 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. :)
    • 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
  • Money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2006, @05:52PM (#16011587)
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      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 do
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        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
    • Re:Money (Score:4, Insightful)

      by johnstein (602156) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:59PM (#16012590) Journal
      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.
  • ...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?
  • by cmonkey_1973 (844398) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @05:53PM (#16011599)
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      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
  • Used to play ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anagama (611277) <`thepotter' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Wednesday August 30 2006, @06:01PM (#16011650) Homepage
    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.
    • Ebay it (Score:3, Interesting)

      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.
    • by rackhamh (217889) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @06:19PM (#16011766)
      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.
    • 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..

      • 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.
        • 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.

  • by w33t (978574) * on Wednesday August 30 2006, @06:07PM (#16011697) Homepage
    ...there aren't just 2 gamer markets, but instead a whopping 6.

    What is this, game-string theory?
  • by d'fim (132296) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @06:07PM (#16011698)
    "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 . . .
  • by ADRA (37398) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @06:10PM (#16011707)
    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?
  • 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. Real

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

  • 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
      • "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.
  • Game On (Score:4, Funny)

    by shoma-san (739914) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @06:33PM (#16011855)
    There are only 10 types of gamers in the world: Those who understand pwning, and those who don't
  • 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?
  • 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 sur
  • 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
  • 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?
  • by kinglink (195330) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @07:46PM (#16012235)
    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.