| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Game industry 'ignoring' casual gamers @ BBC |
|
An industry address at EGN has told attendees that the industry is doing a poor job of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3620518.stm" target="_blank">appealing to casual players</a>:<blockquote><em>Mr Dromgoole told delegates at the EGN conference that it was important to look at ways of enticing these people to buy and play more games.
<br>
<br>"There are loads and loads of casuals," said Mr Dromgoole. "It is worth chasing them. They are our new frontier."
<br>
<br>Currently these players account for 11% of the $30bn spent annually worldwide on games, adding up to a sizeable potential source of revenue.
<br>
<br>The games industry needed to learn how to tap into this lucrative market, Mr Dromgoole told delegates. </em></blockquote>Which makes regular players 89% of the market, right? |
Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:23 pm |
|
|
Majnun
Village Leader
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 89
|
It's business/management wankers like that moron that are DESTROYING the gaming industry in the guise of making it more successful.
Sure, dumb down the games EVEN MORE to make them more accessible to that 11% of f*cking idiots who can't read an instruction manual and RUIN the games for the majority of us who actually LIKE complex gameplay occassionally. And god forbid we get some creativity and originality, wouldn't want to scare anybody off with that now.
If all he's talking about is better marketing and advertising then I have no problem with that. But I have a feeling he's spouting more of the crap like Warren Spector did when he said he didn't want to make games just for people with PhD's, but instead wanted to make games everybody can enjoy. In other words, instead of making Thief or Deus Ex, crank out useless turds like Deus Ex IW.
quote:
"Casual gamers are big on brands that have come from outside the industry as it is something they know a little about, like a game based on a film or book," said Mr Dromgoole.
Yeah, and lets think now. How many games based on films or books have actually not sucked utter balls? I can think of ONE, ever. Delta Force Blackhawk Down, but it was NOT tied to the movie (released a year later based on the same events) so it wasn't rushed by a publisher to coincide with the movie release. And as far as well known (established) franchises go...they tend to start turning into CRAP games as soon as the "casual" gamers are aware of them. Tomb Raider anyone?
quote:
"We need to make them comfortable," Mr Dromgoole told the EGN conference.
Make them more comfortable my making them more AWARE of the GOOD games. Not by churning out more simplistic un-creative garbage based on things they already know.
Simple (stupid) games for simple (stupid) people. Gotta love that aiming for the lowest common-denominator Walmart mentality. Screw you Mr Dromgoole and everyone like you in the gaming industry. |
|
Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:46 pm |
|
|
Dyne
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Posts: 17
Location: London, UK |
So Mr Dromgoole doesn't understand basic maths then, what with an 89% market share being better than an 11% share.
And he hasn't heard of EA. And Sony. And Gamestars Live. And the decline of the games industry as a hotbed of creativity and depth, with a shift to insipid licences and Generic FPS/RTS/3rd person shooter/whatever #328
Indeed, let's forget about things like depth, story, immersion and creativity. What we need is guns and nudey women. With an all-new gritty, urban R&B-Hip hop-Rap-Metal-Rap/metal-Indie-Rock soundtrack. Oh, and sling some brand names in an' all. And set it in Vietnam. And put Tony Hawks in it. And release it again next year but with the prefix "Xtreme" with a new gun in it.
And if you suggest something new and daring, you're fired, because business is all about...uhhh...not taking risks. And I want it done in Renderware, in 12 months or less.
Clearly this attitude sustained the games industry throughout its infancy and made it what it is today. Elite never happened, neither did Lucasarts' point-and-click adventures, or Wizardry, or Ultima, and Baldur's Gate only sold 2 copies.
HOW do these people manage to get these jobs?! WHY do they not see what plenty of us see? Did Interplay's destruction teach them nothing?!
I despair sometimes, I really do.
_________________
Chonky big tim-tam Australian so-so. |
|
Mon Sep 06, 2004 11:43 pm |
|
|
Wolfie_
Guest
|
(Applauds Majnun and Dyne)
Their empassioned responses said it all, cannot put it better.
As a member of the "high disposible income" demographic (ie, 18-35 yo), game producers (I'm lumping the whole developer, publisher, distributor together here) are simpy not delivering quaility games that I would happily buy if it were available.
An astounding percentage of the games released which carry the "RPG" tag just do not have the depth of storyline, and character / party development complexity I want (yes, I say complexity, I _WANT_ my steak and 3 veg, not some beef-flavoured broth I could drink through a straw!). Heck, the term "role-play" has been so watered down, now any game where I the player am a character, it is therefore deemed a RPG, humph, a sports or a car racing game could be called a RPG because I'm playing the "role" of some sports personaility!!!
As I look back over the last 10 years of games, having grown up on a steady diet of Wizardry and Ultima, with a bit of Bard's Tale thrown into the mix, I'm saddened to reaise one one CRPG series has come to the forefront to join that illisterous (sp?) list, and that's the Gothic series (which was never even distributed in Australia I'll add). Morrowind gets a notiable mention as a good try at delivering a open-scope, free-form character development game, and BG for it's storyline (if rather single-threaded) and NWN for opening up the potential of a true D&D experience (with players and a DM). TAKE NOTE GAME PRODUCERS, that's only 5-6 worthy purchases over a 10 year period, this is not exactly maximising your tapping of my (and 100s of thousands like me) spending dollars now is it?!! Perhaps you should be reconsidering your strategies.
 |
|
Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:21 am |
|
|
Guest
|
Its funny how tastes are so different. I do not consider any of the games wolfie mentioned true rpgs. Recently the rpgs that stand out for me are Fo1 and FO2, TOEE, Wiz8, Geneforge, and other true rpgs.
Obvouisly the non-casual market is not 89%. That 89% is segmented. I would even say that Wolfie and probably 89% of the people that visit this site or play rpgs belong to the casual gaming segment.
If Wolfie does not consider himself a casual gamer, and he likes action games like Gothic and Morrowind, then how big of a segment do I belong to? 1%? 2%? 11%? Is it worth making a game I would buy? Spiderware thinks so. So does Trokia (and everyone on the NMA site).
So game devs are left with risk vs. reward. Is the amount of effort it takes to make a detailed rpg worth the return? Will the return cover all the expenses and make a profit, and enough of a profit to cover our risks?
Most publishers are incorporated, they have a duty to, and their real job is, to make money for the owners (stockholders). Their job isn't to pander to nich markets and make games that do not stand up to financial analysis.
That leaves us with non-corporate types that understand high-risk equals high reward. Many Euro devs are like this (but in all fairness maybe in their countries the games they make are not considered high-risk, Buka and "The Power of Law" come to mind). As soon as a profitable turn-based rpg is made other devs will jump on the bandwagon and make the fancy eye-candy garbage that you all love. They of course will want to increase profitability by dumbing down the mechanics to not scare off casual types and then we are left with NWN, right back where we started. Oh well. Most of you want NWN.
The casual Market this Dr. Dumbass is talking about is the unltra casual, can't figure out the controlers for Madden 2004 so I will stick to GBA market. If you had an RPG market pie, I would be willing to bet that it fits a bell curve % pretty well. 5% hardcore, 5% ultra casual, 45% complex casual, 45% casual. It makes sense to screw and write off the harcore and ultracasual. Pander to the complex casuals (morrowind, BG) and the casual (NWN, Gothic, Diablo).
Every RPG being made is being geared towards all the people that visit this site, and probably everyone that posted on this thread. The only people that are left out are the hardcores like me, and ultra casuals that probably aren't bright enough to even find this site or this article. |
|
Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:28 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
Its funny how tastes are so different. I do not consider any of the games wolfie mentioned true rpgs. Recently the rpgs that stand out for me are Fo1 and FO2, TOEE, Wiz8, Geneforge, and other true rpgs.
...
Every RPG being made is being geared towards all the people that visit this site, and probably everyone that posted on this thread. The only people that are left out are the hardcores like me, and ultra casuals that probably aren't bright enough to even find this site or this article.
You are just another turn-based elitist who thinks that he is doing brain surgery by playing FO.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Tue Sep 07, 2004 5:57 pm |
|
|
Lorgosin
Head Merchant
Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 69
Location: Sweden |
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
Its funny how tastes are so different. I do not consider any of the games wolfie mentioned true rpgs. Recently the rpgs that stand out for me are Fo1 and FO2, TOEE, Wiz8, Geneforge, and other true rpgs.
...
Every RPG being made is being geared towards all the people that visit this site, and probably everyone that posted on this thread. The only people that are left out are the hardcores like me, and ultra casuals that probably aren't bright enough to even find this site or this article.
You are just another turn-based elitist who thinks that he is doing brain surgery by playing FO.
I totally agree. The game mechanics are secondary to the objective of the game design. If the clear goal of the design is to let the player play a role it's an RPG, it's that simple. As I keep pointing out, game mechanics are means to an end, they cannot define genres. If a game is better served by turn based combat, that's what it should have. If it isn't it shouldn't. I consider a really hardcore gamer to be one that is interested in the underlying systems of the game and who has probably designed and made games themselves. You are not smart just because you can play fallout. I like fallout, but because of it's freedom, not for the mental challenge. If you (guest) see RPGs as only a mental challenge you obviously haven't got the point of RPGs (to play a role). If you design games in your spare time and go to gaming conventions (including non-electronic), then you can call yourself hardcore. I hate it when people think they are cool because they like turn based. I like it but see it as a personal preference. I play Morrowind and Gothic for their other great qualities, and believe me, I'm a harcore gamer (designed games since the age of nine, programmed RPGs, studying AI, and have a personal library of boardgames that fills two bookcases. |
|
Tue Sep 07, 2004 6:49 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
This is one of those comments where when you read it for the first time you almost can't believe that it was actually said. Then you read it 5 more times just to be sure.
Wow. If you ask me, the vast majority of PC and console games already appeal to the 'casual gamer.'
One usually only reads such remarkable mind numbing statements in political articles. Guess gaming isn't immune to this.
We all have collectively become dumber for having been exposed to this.
Each month I have 50 bucks to spend on a computer or videogame. Since January, I've accumulated $450. Each week I go to a gaming store and simply find nothing of interest to buy. The previous poster is right. There's FPS #328 with a new gun. Bleh.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Tue Sep 07, 2004 6:54 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
@ Majnun:
I agree with what you say, but you realy need to tone the language down...
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:16 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Amen Majnun, Amen. |
|
Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 am |
|
|
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorgosin
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
Its funny how tastes are so different. I do not consider any of the games wolfie mentioned true rpgs. Recently the rpgs that stand out for me are Fo1 and FO2, TOEE, Wiz8, Geneforge, and other true rpgs.
...
Every RPG being made is being geared towards all the people that visit this site, and probably everyone that posted on this thread. The only people that are left out are the hardcores like me, and ultra casuals that probably aren't bright enough to even find this site or this article.
You are just another turn-based elitist who thinks that he is doing brain surgery by playing FO.
I totally agree. The game mechanics are secondary to the objective of the game design. If the clear goal of the design is to let the player play a role it's an RPG, it's that simple. As I keep pointing out, game mechanics are means to an end, they cannot define genres. If a game is better served by turn based combat, that's what it should have. If it isn't it shouldn't. I consider a really hardcore gamer to be one that is interested in the underlying systems of the game and who has probably designed and made games themselves. You are not smart just because you can play fallout. I like fallout, but because of it's freedom, not for the mental challenge. If you (guest) see RPGs as only a mental challenge you obviously haven't got the point of RPGs (to play a role). If you design games in your spare time and go to gaming conventions (including non-electronic), then you can call yourself hardcore. I hate it when people think they are cool because they like turn based. I like it but see it as a personal preference. I play Morrowind and Gothic for their other great qualities, and believe me, I'm a harcore gamer (designed games since the age of nine, programmed RPGs, studying AI, and have a personal library of boardgames that fills two bookcases.
How does liking turn-based combat make me an eletist Jung? Did you read the post? Did I make any statements that claimed what I liked was superior? The only thing liking TB games makes me is bored, becuase there isn't any. I agree with the madgamer, all the games coming out are all ready targeted at the casual market. I mad no claims that likeing FO makes me smart or better. Now my taste in P&P rpgs makes me hardcore (in the P&P market). I like the rpgs no one else will touch or for the most part even heard of. Like RuneQuest, Chivalry & Sorcery, Harn, RoleMaster, etc. You would obvoiusly like Fudge (the rpg not the food item). I don't action games, any supposed rpg where the combat is click-click-click-click-click is an action game.
And Lorgosin, your definition of an rpg would include almost any game ever made. Did the developers of Super Mario Brothers expect me to play the role of Zelda? Did I assume the role of a duck hunter when I played Duck Hunt, or did I assume the role of Donkey Kong? Your definition is asinine, not well thought out, and just plain crazy. Why is Morrowind an RPG and Zelda not? Dialoque choices? Why makes Kotor an RPG, the multiple paths to an ending (good or bad?) I guess Black and White is even more of an RPG. And then Republic Revoltion is the greatest RPG ever made.
You are casual gamers, you are the majority of gamers, games are made and geared towards you. That isn't bad for you, it is good for you. You have crpgs (or what you consider crpgs) and I don't. Supply and demand. Don't hate economics, embrace it, love it, welcome to the free world. It isn't fair and people who trot off the beaten path like me do not get what they want, but casual gamers like you do. Viva la free market societies and the simple man's needs. The tyrrany of the center. |
|
Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:52 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
If you aren't an elitist, Guest, your post makes you sound so by continuously referring to "people who visit this site" and "you" as if "we" were some homogenous group of casual consolers who hardly knew an RPG from an FPS -- and presumably as opposed to a "hardcore" site like NMA or RPG Codex.
Visitors to RPGDot are many and varied and I have no doubt with our size our readers do match the bell curve but don't lump us all into the casual bucket of neophyte KotOR players.
What happens if I like FO, Wizardry, ToEE and Gothic? Does that make me a Hardcore-Complex-Casual player? And if your preference is for Power of Law and ToEE, doesn't that potentially make you a Strategy player because PoL is no real RPG and ToEE is a pretty poor one (leaving aside the excellent combat)?
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:20 am |
|
|
Lorgosin
Head Merchant
Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 69
Location: Sweden |
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
And Lorgosin, your definition of an rpg would include almost any game ever made. Did the developers of Super Mario Brothers expect me to play the role of Zelda? Did I assume the role of a duck hunter when I played Duck Hunt, or did I assume the role of Donkey Kong? Your definition is asinine, not well thought out, and just plain crazy. Why is Morrowind an RPG and Zelda not? Dialoque choices? Why makes Kotor an RPG, the multiple paths to an ending (good or bad?) I guess Black and White is even more of an RPG. And then Republic Revoltion is the greatest RPG ever made.
The non RPGs you mentioned doesn't let you play a role, they let you move an avatar around the screen. They don't let you affect the plot in any meaningful way, therefore any personality the character has is supplied by the game, not by you. Hence, YOU are not playing the role. Playing a role means assuming a personality, not an occupation.
What makes you assume I (or most of the people I know for that matter) have not heard of the P&P RPGs you mentioned (I have), or played most of the CRPGs (I have). If you are not interested in rules systems and have designed board games or P&P RPGs yourself you can hardly call yourself hardcore. Don't see it as a badge of honour and claim to be something you're not. There is already inflation in the word. |
|
Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:41 am |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
How does liking turn-based combat make me an eletist Jung? Did you read the post? Did I make any statements that claimed what I liked was superior? The only thing liking TB games makes me is bored, becuase there isn't any. I agree with the madgamer, all the games coming out are all ready targeted at the casual market. I mad no claims that likeing FO makes me smart or better. Now my taste in P&P rpgs makes me hardcore (in the P&P market). I like the rpgs no one else will touch or for the most part even heard of. Like RuneQuest, Chivalry & Sorcery, Harn, RoleMaster, etc. You would obvoiusly like Fudge (the rpg not the food item). I don't action games, any supposed rpg where the combat is click-click-click-click-click is an action game.
Why don't you reread your own post? I don't even have to read between the lines to understand that you think the only real RPGs are TB, and you equate action with dumb. Then, you pretty much lump us all into the dumb-game luvin' category.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:35 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
I think you guys are getting a bit off track and too bogged down trying to define exactly what is a roleplaying game and that's largely a futile effort.
I think where we can all find common ground is in the statement that was made by Mr. Dromgoole (christ that's some name).
The idea that people of influence in computer game design believe that there is a need for additional 'casual games' is unbelievable given the huge number of shallow games available.
Instead of trying to define a roleplaying game, an effort that will only lead to disagreement, I think it would be more interesting to try to define what isn't a casual game...
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:56 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:32 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
