Do Hardcore Gamers still matter?

[Crazy Gringo]

I found this article in my Gamespy newsletter....

Do Hardcore Gamers still matter?

I guess life ends at 34 for the hardcore gamer.....*Urgh!* Not much time left....Better game through to the end.

[Zombie]

Thanks for the heads-up Crazy Gringo!

 

I'm not sure if all of the definitions of a "Hardcore gamer" apply to me directly. Just so happens I turn 34 this year and I don't foresee myself giving up on games for a while. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the first person in line at midnight to buy a new game. Nor do I spend my entire income on the latest and greatest platforms or releases. But if this is any indication of a Hardcore gamer, then I'm guilty as charged:

 

People often use 'hours of time played per week' to define a hardcore gamer, but I believe it has more to do with mindshare; if you're sitting at work all day thinking about the game you're going to play when you get home rather than the movie you're going to watch or the book you're going to read, then you're a hardcore gamer by our definition.

Need I mention which particular game occupies most of my waking hours?

 

- Zombie

[Gimli]

That was very interesting, thanks Gringo. I especially like page 3, BioWare's part. Just goes to show that we have quite a bit of power, too bad we still don't realize it, and we're not using it enough.

[FullAuto]

you run the risk of making the game unappealing to the market you're really going after (the "casual" gamers) by making it too difficult or specialized

 

I think this tells us that no, hardcore gamers do not matter. The market they are trying to sell to is casual gamers. Which is why games are getting stupider, easier but better looking.

 

unless you're dealing with a big marketing push where you don't go for the hardcore guys

 

Which is getting to be the case, more and more often. Smaller developers get bought up or just plain put out of business by the bigger ones who can afford the big marketing push for their next AAA clone title.

 

If you're making a television push, let's say a game licensed from a movie, reaching hardcore guys isn't as important because you want to sell 1-2 million units. There aren't enough hardcore guys.

 

Again, there's just not enough of us. The casual gamer is more important, because their money is worth exactly as much as ours is.

 

Right now, very little, because the types of games these guys get excited about are often the types of games that don't sell well.

 

I think there are games made to attract casual gamers and games made to attract hardcore gamers. But... as games become even more expensive to create, there's going to be bigger bets placed on titles that appeal to a much wider audience because you can't target only the hardcore at that point or you'll go bankrupt.

 

What they do is, ultimately, they hurt some of the products that they're so vocal complaining about.

 

Because that product was a bag of spanners.

[FullAuto]

Apologies for the double post, but I thought there was something else that needs to be pointed out.

 

When your job is to make sales happen, you tend to be a realist, and it definitely shows with Ervin's answers. The simple fact is, hardcore gamers are a minority. They may be vocal and they may be dedicated and influential, but they just don't have the numbers or the buying power to make a game a megahit all by themselves.

 

This is an inexcusable attitude that has infected first the distributors, then the developers, and now it's infected the gaming media. Why does a game have to be a 'megahit'? It isn't enough for a game to be successful any more. It must not only make a profit, it has to make a huge profit. Why? I'm always reminded of a story I was told about a film.

 

It cost $3 million to make, and grossed $14 million, but the studio in charge called it a failure. Why? Because it only made $14 million. Never mind the fact that it only cost $3 million to make, and made them several hundred percent profit.

 

Every game now has to dominate the charts and hit the Top 10, or it's a failure. Never mind unrealistic, it's greedy.

[Matri]

Every game now has to dominate the charts and hit the Top 10, or it's a failure. Never mind unrealistic, it's greedy.

Exactly. The Top 10 is a joke now, since nearly every game that comes out nowadays forces another off the list. The turnover rate must be frikkin' high.

 

I'm guessing the bigwigs equate success with popularity. If it's not on a Top list, then it's not popular. If it's not popular, then noone will buy it. If noone buys it, then its a loss (despite the fact that it's still making them oodles and oodles of money, after all I'm sure their accountants can balance those books ). The ones who ultimately suffer here are the developers, since they're less likely to get further investments after all their "failures" *air quotes*

[FullAuto]

the hardcore just have this problem all the time. They are also more likely to know more about who makes their favorite games, buy/wear more game swag, collect more action figures, buy soundtracks to their favorite games. In general they are probably a bit more surly that the rest of the world doesn't understand why they do what they do, but would probably be even more upset if all of a sudden everyone started doing it.

 

Tom Russo is an arsehole. You heard it here first.

 

I think the hardcore will always consider obscure titles and support the quirky titles like Katamari

 

Go to Hell, Russo. Last time I checked, Katamari Damacy sold more than half a million copies in Japan alone. Quirk you right in the Goddamn eye.

 

People in popular media who cover games are in a unique position. They really don't have anything to do with the actual creation of games, but at the same time their job is to keep their fingers on the pulse of the industry, and they also tend to have the most in common with your typical hardcore gamer. As a result, we expected Russo's answers to be drastically different from everyone else's, but that didn't happen to be the case. Perhaps this is because the media is still part of the gaming business, and like everyone else, they realize that for gaming to grow, you've got to go beyond hardcore gamers.

 

I know why Russo's answers weren't drastically different. Arsehole. And if you replace 'grow' with 'be watered down' in the last sentence, you know what's really going on.

 

Good numbers make a good game, not necessarily good buzz, so it's easy to see how someone in marketing may not hold the hardcore crowd in as high esteem as someone in development. On the other hand, developers seem to value this group the most.

 

At the end of the day, this industry is still a business, and the point of business is to make a profit. With the rising costs of game development, it makes more sense for companies to appeal to the biggest crowd rather than going after a select few.

 

Thank you, GameSpy. Screw you too.

 

It's apparent that the developers really care about what the hardcore have to say, and they can discern between the hardcore and a bunch of whiny little crybabies complaining about nothing.

 

The marketing guy doesn't give two hoots about the hardcore, because he's going to issue some press releases, attend a Q&A or two, then drive off in his Ferrari with an expensive prostitute in the passenger seat and a glove box full of cocaine. Fantastic. This is the type of bloke running the industry. Games mean zero to him. And he has a stupid name.

[Matri]

Whoah, settle down FA... He's not worth it.

[Mikal]

Seems to me they don't want to bother with quality, just with suckers who are easily parted from their money.

[Mouse Nightshirt]

I'm not overly surprised that its the developer that holds the hardcore games in highest regard, as they're the ones with the most experience of the group.

 

It's attitudes like the marketing guy that make a series like X-Com dissapear into the ether.