Casual Gaming the Real Next Gen?

The Guardian Gamesblog wonders aloud about the ramifications of casual gaming; could it be that the wave of casual and mobile games is the real next generation of gaming? Author Keith Stuart interviews Matt Spall, of UK studio Morpheme, for an insider's perspective. From the article: "People buying the DS to play Brain Training, and Nintendogs are probably not even aware of Metroid or Advance Wars which kind of suggests this might be a one-way street — the hardcore aren't likely to buy these 'ultra casual' titles in great numbers, because they're fairly simplistic, and don't offer a great deal of depth for a hardcore player. Hopefully though, some people who would never normally play games now own DSs, and may 'graduate' to more advanced titles over time. Having said that, the fact that the DS market can support things like Electroplankton, which can keep anyone charmed for ages, is already encouraging."

De(S)Liteful

[MrSquirrel (976630)]

I liked several of the games on the DS and saw its promise (my roommate has one) but decided the oddly shaped and tough to pocket system was not for me... the DS Lite, however, is a different matter. Before, the games may have appealed to someone but the system proved to be a bit of a turn-off -- now the DS Lite opens doors to give the good games a good platform and it all equals a good opportunity for Nintendo. Now... as soon as they release a black one in the US, I will buy it.

Re:De(S)Liteful

[MrSquirrel (976630)]

*Ahem*, I kind of got off-track of my original point to commenting -- I feel that before, it was just not economical for a "casual" gamer to play games. Throw down $300 for a Playstation to play the 1 or 2 games that appealed to you? No way, Jose! Now you can get a DS Lite for less than $150, it comes with EVERYTHING you need (you have to hook a playstation/xbox/whatever up to a T.V. and plug in a controller, etc...), you just throw a game in, turn it on and you are enjoying yourself. It can be taken anywhere, which is important because the "casual" gamer doesn't usally devote time to play games sitting in front of the t.v. (they're silly and have too much interest in this "real life" thing) so pocket gaming is a good way to lull them in. Once they have the system, it's easy for them to say "Well, I normally wouldn't play [hardcore gamer game here], but it looks neat and I do already have the system, so why not".

Re:De(S)Liteful

[caffeinatedOnline (926067)]

While this may be flamebait, I am going to hazard a guess that the 'casual' gamer probably has more disposable income then a 'hard core' gamer. I know alot of people that would love to be able to spend 20+ hours a week playing a game, getting to know it's in and outs, becoming a proficient player. But, due to having to go to work, it's not possible. I am not implying that hard core gamers don't work, or don't make a decent living, but IMO if you compared the salaries of those that consider themselves 'hard

Casual doesn't make as much money

[andrewman327 (635952)]

Casual gamers are less likely to purchase all of those lovely extras for their games, thus generating less money. I do not know many super casual gamers who are out buying the latest SLI pair of graphics cards or multiple expansions to enhance their "Electroplankton" experience. This is a bigger deal for computer games instead of portable or consol games, but it is still worth noting. I do not see casual gaming becoming the "Real Next Gen," as TFA asserts.

Re:Casual doesn't make as much money

[CaseM (746707)]

They (casual gamers) are also more likely to buy way more units than the hardcore minority. See Worlf of Warcraft's numbers for an example of where the previously MMORPG-ignorant have come in droves at a time when people were shouting "saturation point!!" for the MMORPG market. Casual gamers have one thing that the hardcore do not: sheer numbers. They're a hugely attractive, untapped market. TFA is dead on, imo.

why just one next gen

[flaming-opus (8186)]

I think there's market room for both. The hardcore can dump a grand on a ps3 and a pile of 3d shooters, and there will be several million of these folks.

There is also an addressable market of several tens of million people interested in spending a couple hundred dollars a year and a couple hours a week on video games.

It's like any other recreation market. There are cyclists who will drop five grand on a carbon-fiber frame, and those of us who like to take a ride around the lake on our three hundred dollar m

Re:Casual doesn't make as much money

[Hannah E. Davis (870669)]

Actually, casual players will shell out, but you have to give them the right incentive. Whereas hardcore players will grind for hours to get exactly what they want out of a game (buying and playing through expansions as needed), casual players typically don't want to put in that kind of time or effort and will pay real money for "shortcuts" in the form of in-game money, items, or frivolous extras.

Seriously, which demographic do you think Rare is counting on to buy pinata sweaters on Xbox Live?

Re:Casual doesn't make as much money

[BigCheese (47608)]

That's exactly what Three Rings is doing with http://puzzlepirates.com/ [puzzlepirates.com] and http://banghowdy.com/ [banghowdy.com].

Re:Casual doesn't make as much money

[jchenx (267053)]

Bzzt! You sound like a traditional hard-core gamer that doesn't get what casual gamers spend their money on. No, it's not about $200 graphics cards. Or going to the store to pick up a $50 retail title or expansion.

Casual gamers are the ones who buy those $20 download games that the rest of us scoff at. They also purchase those $3 ringtones, or shell out $8 every couple of months for a new mobile game.

A little bit here and there definately adds up. That's why casual gaming is one of the largest growth areas of the industry, and why a lot of people are now taking notice.

just a thought

[aleksiel (678251)]

casual gaming has always been huge. just look at the crossword puzzle in the papers. i wonder how many millions of people in america do the daily crossword puzzle in their local paper. or how many sudoku books have been sold.

this is just porting that popularity into a medium where someone can pay a reasonable price for unlimited access to lots of different types of activities and iterations of these activities.

Re:just a thought

[CaseM (746707)]

Excellent post. I was going to respond elsewhere that games like we're currently seeing have been around since the days of Pacman - easy to pick up but reward time & effort by the more faithful players. Graphics and new technologies quickly trumped that, though, and have been doing so (more or less) for the last twenty years until we're now, as I see it, coming full-circle to a place where the market is ripe for a return to yesteryear.

The generation that popped all those quarters into Pacman and Gala

No

[p0tat03 (985078)]

No no no no no no no. This is just wishful thinking on the developers' part.

Look at the greater casual game industry in general, which is far older and more mature than what we've seen on the DS thus far. Even after years upon years of casual gaming, the vast majority of users are *still* playing their Bejeweled clone #5758, and *still* doing the Solitaire thing. I have seen *very* few casual gamers get into even slightly more complex games.

IMHO there's a real ache in the industry for casual-hardcore ga

Re:No

[CaseM (746707)]

I find many such games - budget-style games that are very much "pick up and play" yet reward extended "practice" - on the DS and XBox Live Arcade. You can get into them in a minute but contain enough depth (and fun) to keep you coming back for more - games like Geometry Wars and (to a lesser extent) Mario Kart DS, Brain Age, Nintendogs, etc.

Casual Gaming

[caffeinatedOnline (926067)]

It seems to me that the executives of companies are on the verge of finally discovering a way into the mainstream with gaming. Sure, they are creating games for the 'hard core', which IMO seems to be the 20-something sect with alot of free time on their hands and not alot of money, or the slightly younger group that still live at home, with lots of free time, and daddy's wallet.

What some companies are discovering, Nintendo comes to mind, is that games do not have to take hours to become proficient in, and many many hours to complete. Those of us in our thirties, the ones that grew up on Atari 2400's and Pong attached to our TV's through RF splitters, don't have that kind of time anymore to set aside for gaming. But we still like to occasionally sit down (stand in line, etc.) and play a little here and there. But our kids have lots of free time.

Instead of targeting a console or handheld at the 'hard core', make it appeal to both the young and old. There is nothing wrong with having the latest 'OMGL33T' game on the same console as something that takes little time to play.

As to TFA, I think that they are mistaken in their assumption that someone playing a non hard-core game is going to 'graduate' to a more advanced title. I imagine alot of us have 'graduated' outside of the more advanced titles and are looking for something with a little more depth that doesn't take away from the lives that we live in terms of time.

Why does everything have to be another generation?

[entmike (469980)]

Oh wow, a company is releasing games that can be played in 10 minute intervals. Clearly this is the next generation in gaming!

It's like the people who come up with a new genre of techno music for each song. It's called variety, people.

World of Warcraft

[faloi (738831)]

Arguably World of Warcraft is the best example of how good a casual game can do. Sure, once you get to 60 your options as a casual gamer become more limited. But as your leveling up, one of its greatest strengths is that all players can get on and get something done, even with a limited amount of time.

Re:World of Warcraft

[Don853 (978535)]

Except the average time to get one of those 60's is what, 250-300 hours of gameplay? That might be 'casual' compared to other MMORPGS, but it's one hell of a time sink compared to Tetris, which is what I think of as casual gaming.

Re:World of Warcraft

[BigCheese (47608)]

I wouldn't quite say that. When I get into the "zone" in Tetris DS the hours can slip away pretty fast too.

Undoubtedly

[spykemail (983593)]

In terms of big money, casual gaming is undoubtedly the future. Just as "family" movies consistently dominate more audience specific movies at the box office casual games will eventually start to dominate hardcore games.

As time goes by, a larger and larger percentage of the population plays video games. Yes, there is the young male crowd (including some older ones who continue being "hardcore" :) but the real size of the market is everyone - men, women, and children - not just young males. If you can sell a

charmed for ages?

[kisrael (134664)]

I bought a DS because of Electroplankton (mostly from the respect for the artist and his SimTunes) but I don't think it's keeping people charmed for ages... (I do wish it was more SimTunes like, somewhere closer to a tool than "just" a toy...)

Casual Gaming is interesting though. I heard how those "10 in ones" are a monstorously huge market. Too bad there's not more of an indy movement w/ standalone hardware...

not sure..

[tont0r (868535)]

Im not sure if this will be what defines 'next gen'.

One reason is where is the line drawn between hardcore and casual? its not a black and white world folks. I consider myself a casual gamer because I play for about 2 hours a day. Ask my girlfriend though, and Im a hardcore gamer. Ask my other friends who play WoW all day, and im casual. So does that mean people like me will define it? Or people playing brain teaser will define it? There has to have a line drawn somewhere.

Another reason is that this is not

Portables vs consoles

[payndz (589033)]

Portables like the DS are more likely to be bought by the 'casual gamer' simply because they can be played in short bursts, then put back in the pocket/handbag/on the coffe table or whatever and forgotten about. They're simple, cheap and easy to use.

This is not the case with consoles. They're fixed to one location (how many people go to the trouble of moving a console and all its assorted cables and gubbins from one room to another?), more expensive (well, PSP aside :p) and the controllers scare off most

Casual is the new hardcore.

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

I had an informative, insightful, interesting paragraph to respond to this story with... but I'm not going to post it. You see, I'm one of the new, exciting, extreme breed of casual Slashdotter, and I'm just not as into posting to Slashdot.

Strike that...reverse it...

[PhoenixOne (674466)]

"might be a one-way street - the hardcore aren't likely to buy these 'ultra casual' titles ... some people who would never normally play games now own DSs, and may 'graduate' to more advanced titles over time."

My mom, who bought a DS for Brain Age, is not going to "graduate" to Metroid. I have friends that are addicted to Spider Solitaire, they are not going to "graduate" to Unreal 3.

On the other hand, I've seen plenty of my friends, who use to be hardcore gamers, start playing casual games. When you get girlfriends, jobs, car payments, a wife, kids, etc. suddenly it becomes much harder to justify the time and money needed to be hardcore.

If anything, hardcore gamers graduate to become casual games with lives.

More than 2 demographics...

[7Prime (871679)]

Columnists commonly group gamers into two wildly generalized stereotypes: the "casual gamer" and the "hardcore gamer". Now, for a second, let's forget about the extreme ambiguity of the label "hardcore", and the wide variety of demographics within the "casual gamer" catagory, and ask ourselves, "just really, what are we talking about?"

Are we comparing the amount of time put into video games? Are we looking at how people define themselves, socially, in terms of video games (ie: "I consider myself a gamer")? Are we talking about the TYPES of video games that different groups of people play (ie: Elektroplankton vs. Suikoden V vs. Half Life 2)? Even, possibly, are we looking at how a person views video games as an entertainment genre (is it a ligitimate form of entertainment equal to that of litterature and cinema)?

From a marketting perspective, it's not quite as simple as casual/hardcore. There are many gamers who will never leave the PC world, because of the additional hardware required. There are many people who consider themselves "hardcore gamers" (myself included), that will constantly be drawn to handheld systems because they seem to be more devoted to the roots of video gaming. There are some "hardcore gamers" (like a friend of mine) who are still struggling to embrace gaming as ligitimate, mature, entertainment form, and therefor only play early games, feeling that games are only relivent for nestolgic value.

I find this concentration on "casual gamers" to be very silly and a bit shortsided. There's a good chance that the Wii is going to be a hit all the way across the board, but my suspicions is that its biggest supporters are going to be life-long gamers, the emulator crowd (and the would-be emulator crowd): those that feel that the original ideals of gaming got a bit lost somewhere along the way, and thus the direction of gaming should back up a bit, and then branch out from there. Similarly with handhelds, some of the people I consider to be the "hardest-core" gamers I know are huge GBA and DS fans.