| Author | Message |
|---|
Last post: Today at 23:19
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 15:07 |
Social and casual gaming has received a massive increase in popularity over the past few years. With the growing purchase rates of smartphones and the ubiquity of social networks, companies are finding new ways to get our money. Some people, whether it be critics, business people, developers, or even gamers, believe these casual games may threaten the home console gaming market. Reasons for this line of thinking are that the console pricing model is broken and the learning curve is too steep for some. In addition to that, these apps like Angry Birds or Temple Run, two of the most popular games on mobile devices, require not just much less time to initially develop, but also much less time to update and add content.
Last May, the President of Rovio (Angry Birds) came out and boldly stated that because of reasons like the ones above, console games are "dying". Why pay $60 for a game you can only play at home, takes up too much time, and requires learning a complicated configuration of button commands when you can pick up and play a game on the go, no matter where you are, for less than the price of lunch?
Others have voiced their opinions on the console market too. Ben Cousins, who makes mobile and tablet games for ngmoco, believes it isn't just PC gaming that is dying, which has been the claim for over a decade now. the big three, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, are also hurting, according to his study on video gaming market share. Of course, with a new platform such as smartphones, tablets, and social networking sites being introduced, it's reasonable to consider that the already cemented companies would take a hit in their market share, but according to him, the hits just keep on coming, and it's indicative of a trend that will one day kill console gaming completely. When Cousins says console games are dying, he doesn't mean no one will use them ever, he defines it as "significantly smaller market share with no signs of return." That part is important to understand. It isn't that console games would cease to exist, but they would no longer be at the top of the industry's totem pole. This is not just a possibility to Cousins, it is bound to happen, and slowly happening right now.
It's a scary thought to many, after all, our console games we play today are largely responsible for the death of arcades. Can these devices we hold in our pockets now some day do the same thing to consoles? Black Ops, one of the best selling games for the Xbox 360, has sold about 25 million copies, a very respectable figure. Angry Birds has been downloaded upwards of... 500 million times. The numbers for some of these games are staggering. Even some popular titles on our Xboxes have migrated in some form to these smaller spaces. You can play versions of Madden or Assassin's Creed on Facebook, and Dead Space can be downloaded right to your smartphone or tablet. It seems even the biggest of developers and publishers are dipping their toes into the casual market.
It's true that with a tiny price tag, multiplayer modes, and increasingly impressive visuals, socials games and apps have their appeal. But how far does that appeal go? What's your take on these casual and mobile games? Do you feel they are a legitimate threat to our home consoles, or are they just fun games to dive into while you're away from your beloved Xbox?
Poll: Do you consider casual gaming a legitimate threat to console gaming?
10.1% - Yes, I believe consoles will be phased out eventually
73.0% - No, I think both platforms can co-exist
7.9% - No, I think casual games will be phased out eventually
6.7% - I'm not sure
2.2% - Other
We had 868 responses to the poll.
You must log in to vote on this poll
|
Last post: 22 May at 02:54
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 15:25 |
| Ben Cousins is delusional! |
Why so blue Panda Bear? |
Last post: 16 May at 12:01
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 15:49 |
Touchscreen virtual joypad controls, for lack of a better word, are shit.
Whilst they may be popular and outstrip sales of retail titles, that isn't because consoles are dying. It's because these games are appealing to a much larger audience than just your traditional console users.
There's also the problem of console sales going stale because of repeated iterations of certain franchises and lack of new IPs. |
Last post: 29 Nov 12 at 16:34
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 16:06 |
I have been wrong on occasion, but I feel games such as Angry Bird are no threat to "uncasual" games. As previous commenter said, casual games appeal to a larger audience which mainly consists of people who would never have picked up console or PC games in the first place.
Now, if casual games were a threat, I think it'd be because attention spans are becoming shorter. Younger people may grow so accustomed to simple games, that they don't want to invest time in learning to play. Like reading; I hear younger people read less than older ones, because they feel movies do the same thing for them than (a good) book.
I don't know if that's the case, but in any case the threat isn't in the fact that angry birds and friends are better games - they are a completely different kind of games than contemporary console/PC-games, let alone old-fashioned PC games. I don't know about others, but I enjoy both movies and books. |
- Janne |
Last post: Today at 16:40
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 17:27 |
| Another factor in favour of console/PC games is story. The size of most of these casual games simply doesn't allow for much of a story. |
Last post: Yesterday at 20:25
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 17:40, Edited on 24 June 12 at 17:41 by yURCH |
Why pay $60 for a game you can only play at home, takes up too much time, and requires learning a complicated configuration of button commands when you can pick up and play a game on the go, no matter where you are, for less than the price of lunch? Because it's much more fun to learn to play the game, discover things by yourself, coming up with good tactics/strategy etc. or just having fun in an open world.
Well, that's what I like about games.
I think they can co-exist. Probably casual games will be more and more popular every year though. |
We, the Dark Court, give whoever you are our highest praise... dood... |
Last post: Today at 23:19
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 17:41 |
yURCH said:Why pay $60 for a game you can only play at home, takes up too much time, and requires learning a complicated configuration of button commands when you can pick up and play a game on the go, no matter where you are, for less than the price of lunch? Because it's much more fun to learn to play the game, discover things by yourself, coming up with good tactics/strategy etc.
Well, that's what I like about games.
I think they can co-exist. Probably casual games will be more and more popular every year though.I don't care much for casual games. I was just making a case for them. |
Last post: Today at 22:22
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 18:04 |
| I think they can easily co-exist. Yes, casual gaming is becoming more and more popular, but that doesn't mean it will hurt console gaming. Unfortunately, so many people today think that in order for one idea or company to succeed, their opponent must fail miserably and burn to the ground. |
Last post: 19 Mar at 09:44
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 18:25 |
| N0T PENNYS B0AT said:It's a scary thought to many, after all, our console games we play today are largely responsible for the death of arcades. Can these devices we hold in our pockets now some day do the same thing to consoles? Black Ops, one of the best selling games for the Xbox 360, has sold about 25 million copies, a very respectable figure. Angry Birds has been downloaded upwards of... 500 million times. Well, yes. The number of people who can flick their finger is exponetially higher than the number of people that can walk and aim at the same time. The fact that the sales are much higher for casual games is common sense. The barrier of entry is much, much lower. |
"Slutty outfit? You're one to talk." "This isn't slutty, it's...strategically placed." |
Last post: Yesterday at 20:25
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 18:26 |
N0T PENNYS B0AT said:yURCH said:Why pay $60 for a game you can only play at home, takes up too much time, and requires learning a complicated configuration of button commands when you can pick up and play a game on the go, no matter where you are, for less than the price of lunch? Because it's much more fun to learn to play the game, discover things by yourself, coming up with good tactics/strategy etc.
Well, that's what I like about games.
I think they can co-exist. Probably casual games will be more and more popular every year though.I don't care much for casual games. I was just making a case for them.I understand that. It was just my point why casual games won't take over non-casual games. My English isn't perfect so it was easier for me to answer your quote. Sorry if it looked like I was trying to confront you  |
We, the Dark Court, give whoever you are our highest praise... dood... |
Last post: Yesterday at 22:55
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 18:28, Edited on 24 June 12 at 18:29 by The Globalizer |
| They will coexist. The casual game makers are right that they're eating away at the low end of the console market, but casual games have significant limitations in terms of persistence (replayability). IMO, Microsoft is on to some genius shit with this Xbox/tablet/SmartGlass synergy, it hits all segments and combines them into a unified platform. They need to execute, but the idea can bear fruit for 10-20 years. |
Last post: Today at 23:19
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 18:32 |
| LV 1 Blue Slime said:N0T PENNYS B0AT said:It's a scary thought to many, after all, our console games we play today are largely responsible for the death of arcades. Can these devices we hold in our pockets now some day do the same thing to consoles? Black Ops, one of the best selling games for the Xbox 360, has sold about 25 million copies, a very respectable figure. Angry Birds has been downloaded upwards of... 500 million times. Well, yes. The number of people who can flick their finger is exponetially higher than the number of people that can walk and aim at the same time. The fact that the sales are much higher for casual games is common sense. The barrier of entry is much, much lower.Correct. |
Last post: 22 May at 20:28
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 18:47 |
I believe that not having casual games would be slightly unfair to most people, not everyone wants or can afford games console and might rather play games on their internet browser, sure they might not enjoy gaming as much as some other people but who are we to say they shouldn't be able to?
I've known myself to play random games on the internet, not often but certainly to kill some time. |
"I pity you, you just don't get it at all, there's not a thing I don't cherish!" |
Last post: 15 Dec 12 at 15:10
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 19:32 |
I voted that they can co-exist.
I think the people that should be scared are the "hardcore" $700+ PC gamers. Between lack of developer interest due to piracy... 90% of games worth playing being available (and in some cases only available) on their simpler, more affordable console brethren... and the way tablets and Apple have been slowly taking over the non-gaming aspects of PC use... PC gaming as a whole is slowly being phased out. |
Oh, they love us American boys. |
Last post: 23 May at 17:00
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 19:34, Edited on 24 June 12 at 19:36 by MMMDI |
N0T PENNYS B0AT said:Black Ops, one of the best selling games for the Xbox 360, has sold about 25 million copies, a very respectable figure. Angry Birds has been downloaded upwards of... 500 million times. The numbers for some of these games are staggering.Yeah, they have impressive numbers, but it's simply because of the prices. I won't hesitate to drop a buck or two on a game if I think it's going to give me at least a half hour of entertainment... but dropping $60 on a console game? It has to be something I really want (until it drops in price or whatever, but that's beside the point).
With that said, you're never going to get something that compares to a good console game on a phone or tablet. If I want to kill twenty minutes, Angry Birds is great. If I want to play a "real" game (ie, non-casual), I'm not going to get it on my phone.
So, yeah - they will definitely co-exist. |
Last post: 12 May at 15:11
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 20:26 |
Voted other. I believe it's not so much the casual games that will kill console gaming (although those games may contribute), but casual and social gamers.
Gaming was never really about being sociable or casual in the past. Sure people met at arcades but to do their own thing. Console gaming killed arcades because people could do it cheaper (in the long run), at home and by themselves or with select friends. Everyone who played games tended to have a high interest in them.
Now we have everyone playing games, but only casual ones or playing sociably with friends.
Though I don't feel that's for me, I have no issue with the people who choose to do it... My issue is when the companies start to prioritize those individuals and it is that I fear is happening right now!  |
Last post: Today at 11:54
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 21:29 |
I don't have, and will avoid having for as long as possible (Aka, unless I get a job that gives me one), any sort of Smart phone. I find casual games so boring, as there is no reward for effort. Nothing beats finally beating that last boss after 100 hours of grinding up your characters to get there. Angry birds? 'Oh yay I managed to do what I'm sure my 6 year old cousin could'.
Different markets, that will only cross over with the husband getting his farmville playing wife to play L4D with him  |
Last post: 28 Jan at 20:31
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 21:42, Edited on 24 June 12 at 21:43 by Psymon100 |
Yeah, much of the discussion here has already hit the nail on the head. The markets are about as different as the new car and new motorcycle market, they don't really compete, as least not on a direct level.
Some hardcore guys would never play casual games, not even bejeweled on a 360. Some casual guys will never get to enjoy Battlefield 3, or similar. But yes, there are some people (My mate is one) who loves his hardcore games, but takes his ipad on the bus to:
1. Play casual games.
2. Increase his chance of getting mugged after getting off the bus.
There are some things that the hardcore market can learn from the casual market, and vice versa, eg - gameplay is more important than visuals. |
Science, learning, rationalisation, education, logic, reason, critical thinking. |
Last post: 29 Apr at 00:38
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 22:19 |
Psymon100 said:Battlefield 3, or similar. But yes, there are some people (My mate is one) who loves his hardcore games, but takes his ipad on the bus to:
1. Play casual games.
2. Increase his chance of getting mugged after getting off the bus.
I laughed my ass off reading this, mostly because my brother does the same thing even though he has an iPod Touch with the EXACT same thing except even more portable. Nope, gotta take the overpriced Tablet where every person can see you.
On Topic:
I can't really do anything but agree, this also has affected the Fighting Game Community a lot (Though SFIV revitalized it a bit thankfully, now a swarm of fighting games has come around.) in that Fighting games are extremely complex to learn or master making the learning curve a rollercoaster pretty much. Few people want to say "Wow I don't mind getting my ass kicked for weeks until I get the rhythm, so worth it!" especially when there's no local scene around for the social experience.
Why bond with someone and talk about stradegies and frame traps when you can just go "D00D I MADE SOOO MUCH MONEY ON SIMS SOCIAL!!!11one" and everyone knows what you're talking about. It just benefits gamers even more, although I don't like this new boom I certainly accept it because now people you never thought would be gamers, are now gamers.
 |
XBLA addict. |
Last post: Today at 18:13
|
Posted on 24 June 12 at 22:31, Edited on 24 June 12 at 22:38 by NoLifeDGenerate |
Slayer1189 said:Voted other. I believe it's not so much the casual games that will kill console gaming (although those games may contribute), but casual and social gamers.
Gaming was never really about being sociable or casual in the past. Sure people met at arcades but to do their own thing. Console gaming killed arcades because people could do it cheaper (in the long run), at home and by themselves or with select friends. Everyone who played games tended to have a high interest in them.
Now we have everyone playing games, but only casual ones or playing sociably with friends.
Though I don't feel that's for me, I have no issue with the people who choose to do it... My issue is when the companies start to prioritize those individuals and it is that I fear is happening right now! Exactly. Nintendo started this motion gaming crap with the Wii to draw in casuals, and everyone else had to copy it. Now we're seeing games being released Kinect Required etc that have no reason to lack regular controller support. Wii is the worst, but Microsoft seems to be heading in a dangerous direction. Why the hell should a simple trivia game like Millionaire require a Kinect? Add support for whatever you want, but there are very few games that couldn't be played with a controller. I picked up a Wii because I couldn't resist Punchout and I despise it. You have to waive that stupid remote around just for menus in everything. There's no controller support for simple games that obviously SHOULD work with a controller. etc. The really sad part is with all this technology, the NES Zapper is STILL better for arcade shooters!
Gaming used to be about the gameplay and story. Now it's nothing but hi-res graphics with worse and worse load times. Not to mention gouging for DLC that should've been on the disc in the first place and never gets price dropped.
Bungie/343i ruined Halo Reach for casuals. People thought 30 minutes was too long for firefight, but Horde on Gears can last forever!? So they took out dropships to speed things up, which makes the Grounded commendation go from insane to impossible. Did they consider the hardcore gamers that actually wanted to finish their commendations? Nope.
PC gaming is more or less screwed because the companies fear piracy so much they lock down the games to the point it's more convenient to crack them anyway. The Games for WIndows Live thing with achievements is a good way to get people to actually buy the games, I guess.
I don't want Netflix, youtube, and 100 other things on my gaming console. I don't even want a goddamn clock! I miss the old days when console gaming was simple. N64 didn't have a clock to set. Nobody cared what time is was when they were playing Goldeneye. |
100% Onyx MAX on Halo: Reach 6/19/2012: 155 DAYS playtime, 35 million credits banked. |