We're all gamers. From the flash-clickers to casual gamers to SIMs virtual management player to the 80 hours a week 'hardcore' FPSers. I don't see why we need titles and separation.
@Limeade: While I don't think marketers will ever be chased away from putting people in boxes so as to fine-tune their companies to make bigger bucks...it _is_ refreshing to hear a more inclusive, less Cut Their Nuts Off voice, here, regarding the lesser-publicized people who bulk up the numbers of that survey. So, thanks. My bookshelves may bristle with too much hardware to put me in that group, but I bear them no ill will--and am tired of the cultish attacks self-promoted hardcore gamers see fit to unleash upon people who are just trying to have a little fun, same as anyone else.
@svetlana: You're welcome. A community that tears itself apart is something I'll never understand. We can do much more as a united front than segregated subgroups.
Games are an important provider of easy entertainment. The goal is clearly defined, the method to reaching that goal is usually a static concept, and the pursuit of winning can be made again and again.
I see what you're getting at, but the thing is, Flash games are to full production video games as Youtube videos are to Full length, feature films.
Tons of things that take advantage of video recording are not referred to as "film." In the same way, I think it's fair to say that, while solitaire and flash games take advantage of the same technology, they're not really the same thing as full retail games.
Calling these kinds of people 'gamers' is like calling the guy who reads the weekly funny pages a 'fan of graphic novels.'
Though to be fair, some of the better flash game creators go on to become game developers(see Behemoth, The), much like a few YouTube video creators have become actual movie creators.
Granted it is usually only the cream of the crop that does this, though.
@Showmeyomoves!: Well if a gamer is merely someone who plays worm on their cell phone, then I think there is a need for terms like "hardcore" and "casual". "Gamer" is just too broad a term.
Don't argue what constitutes "a gamer". That's not for other people to decide. When a minority of people feel they are entitled to label and judge others, they become the real problem. If you follow politics, take a look at the mess which is the republican party. That's what happens when you let a small minority speak for the rest of the community. So even if someone plays a game once a year, they should feel welcomed by other gamers and industry as a whole. Hard core gamers who are only interested in "pwning" other gamers and talking trash should be forced to play amongst themselves so they can't ruin the experience for everyone else.
@DrunkRobot: Chill DrunkRobot, in marketing, labeling is necessary. No one's starting a culture war over video games. You're probably referring to immature people who can be found in all walks of life. You go to a baseball game you will find die hard fans who do the same thing as hardcore gamers. It's not against the law to be a jerk and you are given the options to ignore these jerks.
@ReconToaster.: I can find no fault in these comparisons, actually. Well done. :)
I guess I just have a problem with people looking down on the 'casual gamer', like they're not good enough to earn the grand title of "hardcore" or (shudder) "real" gamer.
It's also people who really enjoy story-driven games getting frustrated by people playing Wii fit and thinking they're experiencing the best that gaming has to offer.
@Showmeyomoves!: a more apt comparison could be drawn out by asking "what [who] is a skateboarder?" a lot of 12 year old boys have skateboards in their room, but only a small handful would be considered 'skateboarders'.
@ReconToaster.: Who says they aren't? It might not be for you (God knows it's not for me), but who cares! If someone enjoys the funny pages, who am I to tell them they should be reading Watchmen instead?
@ReconToaster.: But his point still stands. Someone who watches Youtube but has never seen a single theatrical release would not be called a moviegoer.
At the same time, you're also correct. This is maddening, as I'm rather particular about language and word selection.
It comes down to this: the word gamer, as is the case for the majority of our words, has different meanings depending on context.
There are golfers, and there are golfers. If I play golf, then I am a golfer. But if you ask someone what they do, and they reply "I am a golfer," that has a different meaning, implying more than just the simple fact that they play golf on occasion. In both cases, the choice of words is correct.
Really, it's the same thing here. There are gamers, and there are gamers.
@SmilingPolitely: Not necessarily. There are golfers, and there are professional golfers (or amateurs trying to make a career out of golfing). Like there are gamers (which includes people who play solitaire on the company computer to the WoW addict) and professional gamers like those of MLG infamy. That's the difference you're showing: people who simply do a hobby, and those who make a living out of that hobby.
@Trey: Aye, and my point remains the same: golfers are golfers whether they are professional or casuals. Using the term golfer in either case is correct; the same goes for gamer.
Whether or not you choose to append "professional" or "amateur" to the word is your own choice, but the using just the base term to describe either group is correct regardless.
It does not necessarily mean that gamers are moving away from consoles, Owen. Remember, Correlation is not Causation!
Most console folks don't play online games.
So they only buy games they REEEALLY want. They cut back.
Online gamers just play for longer periods to either get their money's worth during economic hardship, or they play more online games because it keeps them from engaging in other activites that may result in them spending money.
It's also important to note the differences in the taste of games for both groups.
Also, I never said that there aren't people who do both, so to whoever is angrily typing their response right this moment: STOP IT
So instead of playing quality games for a 10 hour experience and 60 bucks a bunch of people are going for cheaper funner experiences like aq worlds and such? Makes sense really.
Most of these are browser based games aren't they? I mean that obviously means people are playing some sort of game or other at work. I mean not everyone's got consoles at their workplace for leisure hours.
If they're going to classify every browser and such mini-game packages as games along with full fledged retail or console network releases then yes Online gaming is on a rise and console gaming is on a decline.
But really this seems like a statistic that needs a bit more explaining into instead of randomly clumping of facts.
It's like saying yes all humans are equal and they are the dominant species on the planet because we can count 6 billion of them but microbes prolly outnumber us by possibly 10^6 that amount. So yeah.
I'd say online leisure activities are on the rise. Pretty sure it's not universal otherwise people would realize you could play sega classics on their browser at work (from their site).
IMO not really, because the decline in console revenues is more of a cash-crunch issue. Also, the two address two key demographics, not interlinked at all - no, not the casual and hardcore gamers, but the game-at-home, and game-when-working crowd!
Admit it, we all sneak the odd game or two when we're bored. :P
Not surprising, many games like Runescape or even the smaller Asian companies offer a extremely amount of mmorpgs for nothing. Their revenue usually comes from a item mall which feature unique items that help you in game, nothing I would ever pay for but it does keep the games alive.
Plus you get to experience adventures with different type of people, make new friends and it's free. Consoles like the Xbox360 have something like that but again, what they lack is free and online has a lot of that.
In today's economy, "name of publisher" could really screw the "gamestops" by dropping the retail price 50%.(not gonna happen, but I can dream)
In other words, if someone like Microsoft wanted to keep more money in its pocket (than allow someone like Gamestop to profit), Make the retail price from $59.99 to $29.99.
Or, you could rent or just wait. You don't need to run out and buy it! Stop the madness! OXYCLEAN!
It's been said so many times, but when you trade in a game and get only 30-40 bucks when you bought it for $70+ is nothing but BS on your part. A smart move on theirs, but not yours. To me Gamestop is a glorified pawn shop with games that sell it's products to you for 5 dollars less than the retail price.
There was only ONE game I have ever returned and I do not plan to ever do so again.
Game was Orphan BTW. One of the worst games I have played.
You're absolutely right that it takes two to do the Gamestop tango. If they weren't getting trade-ins at the rate they wanted, they'd have to offer more money.
I think the biggest piece of proof that used-game sales don't heavily impact game sales is this: game publishers haven't seen fit to change their ways.
If the used games market was really squeezing anybody out of business, we would have had a game studio apocalypse by now.
What I'm thinking is that unless the companies can promise me that every game in the future that will be digital only, will be available whenever I want it, in the future, then screw digital only.
Right now I can scan Ebay or craigslist or local pawnshops and find games that nobody is even THINKING about offering for digital download (Like Gauntlet: Dark Legacy). What happens when only the most popular games are available? Fuck that. I don't usually like the most popular games, and I want to be able to get old games that I didn't get to play or have nostalgia factor WHEN I WANT.
The thought that I can't just go find a copy of something somewhere because the poor widdle corporations aren't making profit off a 10 year old game makes me very, very sad.
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
(edit: grammar)
08/04/09
08/01/09
I think more people should get into gaming.
08/01/09
ridiculous.
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
A miserable pile of popcorn!
08/01/09
I see what you're getting at, but the thing is, Flash games are to full production video games as Youtube videos are to Full length, feature films.
Tons of things that take advantage of video recording are not referred to as "film." In the same way, I think it's fair to say that, while solitaire and flash games take advantage of the same technology, they're not really the same thing as full retail games.
Calling these kinds of people 'gamers' is like calling the guy who reads the weekly funny pages a 'fan of graphic novels.'
08/01/09
08/01/09
Though to be fair, some of the better flash game creators go on to become game developers(see Behemoth, The), much like a few YouTube video creators have become actual movie creators.
Granted it is usually only the cream of the crop that does this, though.
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
I guess I just have a problem with people looking down on the 'casual gamer', like they're not good enough to earn the grand title of "hardcore" or (shudder) "real" gamer.
08/01/09
It's also people who really enjoy story-driven games getting frustrated by people playing Wii fit and thinking they're experiencing the best that gaming has to offer.
08/01/09
08/01/09
I rest my case.
08/01/09
08/01/09
At the same time, you're also correct. This is maddening, as I'm rather particular about language and word selection.
It comes down to this: the word gamer, as is the case for the majority of our words, has different meanings depending on context.
There are golfers, and there are golfers. If I play golf, then I am a golfer. But if you ask someone what they do, and they reply "I am a golfer," that has a different meaning, implying more than just the simple fact that they play golf on occasion. In both cases, the choice of words is correct.
Really, it's the same thing here. There are gamers, and there are gamers.
08/01/09
08/01/09
Whether or not you choose to append "professional" or "amateur" to the word is your own choice, but the using just the base term to describe either group is correct regardless.
07/12/09
Most console folks don't play online games.
So they only buy games they REEEALLY want. They cut back.
Online gamers just play for longer periods to either get their money's worth during economic hardship, or they play more online games because it keeps them from engaging in other activites that may result in them spending money.
It's also important to note the differences in the taste of games for both groups.
Also, I never said that there aren't people who do both, so to whoever is angrily typing their response right this moment: STOP IT
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
If they're going to classify every browser and such mini-game packages as games along with full fledged retail or console network releases then yes Online gaming is on a rise and console gaming is on a decline.
But really this seems like a statistic that needs a bit more explaining into instead of randomly clumping of facts.
It's like saying yes all humans are equal and they are the dominant species on the planet because we can count 6 billion of them but microbes prolly outnumber us by possibly 10^6 that amount. So yeah.
I'd say online leisure activities are on the rise. Pretty sure it's not universal otherwise people would realize you could play sega classics on their browser at work (from their site).
07/12/09
Admit it, we all sneak the odd game or two when we're bored. :P
07/12/09
Plus you get to experience adventures with different type of people, make new friends and it's free. Consoles like the Xbox360 have something like that but again, what they lack is free and online has a lot of that.
06/29/09
I can think of so many less boring things to do.
06/29/09
In other words, if someone like Microsoft wanted to keep more money in its pocket (than allow someone like Gamestop to profit), Make the retail price from $59.99 to $29.99.
Or, you could rent or just wait. You don't need to run out and buy it! Stop the madness! OXYCLEAN!
06/29/09
There was only ONE game I have ever returned and I do not plan to ever do so again.
Game was Orphan BTW. One of the worst games I have played.
06/30/09
You're absolutely right that it takes two to do the Gamestop tango. If they weren't getting trade-ins at the rate they wanted, they'd have to offer more money.
06/29/09
If the used games market was really squeezing anybody out of business, we would have had a game studio apocalypse by now.
06/29/09
Right now I can scan Ebay or craigslist or local pawnshops and find games that nobody is even THINKING about offering for digital download (Like Gauntlet: Dark Legacy). What happens when only the most popular games are available? Fuck that. I don't usually like the most popular games, and I want to be able to get old games that I didn't get to play or have nostalgia factor WHEN I WANT.
The thought that I can't just go find a copy of something somewhere because the poor widdle corporations aren't making profit off a 10 year old game makes me very, very sad.
06/29/09