RVDondaPC said:
Aielyn said:
Lastgengamer said:
This inquiry is from a financial standpoint regarding Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony and seeing as the casual market is larger overall, I'd have to say it's more important; however the core market as a whole usually remains loyal to each respective console manufacturer and can make a difference overtime. So seeing as they both have their own set of advantages what's your take?
|
Your question doesn't even make sense.
"Core" refers to the people who make the majority of purchases on your console. It is a term referring to business, to the market. The "Core Market" is, essentially, the portion of the market that the company's products are primarily aimed at.
"Casual" refers to the way in which a person plays a game, although the gaming community has accidentally conflated it with "aiming for children, the elderly, etc". In reality, the most casual players of games are often those that play, for instance, Halo, or Call of Duty. The term "casual game" is a nonsensical term, as one can play any game casually, and almost any game in a devoted manner. (EDIT: Oops, I said "casual game" is a nonsensical term. What I meant to say was that a casual game is nothing more than a game designed primarily for the casual player - games that can be played in short bursts quite easily, as opposed to those that are designed to be played for hours at a time)
Most importantly, there's no such thing as a "Casual market". This concept has been invented by either the gaming media or the gaming community in order to pigeonhole the "lesser" games - essentially, it's a term created for elitist purposes.
If what you want to ask is whether games should be more complex, dark, realistic, and filled with guns and explosions, or more simple, light, artistic, and filled with rainbows and cute characters, then my answer has to be all of the above. A developer or publisher that limits their market or their target audience consistently will inevitably end up losing money as they find themselves stuck in a shrinking niche.
|
Core is obviously an abbreviation for Hardcore. In this context it is not used as you defined it.
Also it's a lot easier to just call it casual than to describe it as simple, light, artistic, and filled with rainbows and cute characters every time.
|
Hardcore is different again, though - it's an attitude, not a style of gaming or a market description. One can be a hardcore anything - there are hardcore Wii Sports players out there. And to be clear, I'm not saying that there are hardcore that play Wii Sports, I'm saying that there are people who are hardcore about Wii Sports.
And simple, light, artistic, and filled with rainbows and cute characters isn't consistent with the typical use of the word "casual", either. That's part of the problem. As used in this question, both words are being used poorly, describing completely different things (whether they're abbreviations or whatever), and the definitions are different depending on who you ask. To some, Mario Kart Wii is core. To others, it is casual - it's simple, light, artistic, and filled with cute characters, is it not? Pokemon also sits right there in that clear overlap.
The only words that are often used by the gaming community that consistently refer to opposing concepts are niche and mainstream. And there's really no doubt which of those are more important/desirable. By definition, the core market is important/desirable, but it must be noted that, when disruption occurs, the previous core market often weakens in favour of the new market that is opened up by the disruption. Casual and Marathon don't describe markets, they describe gameplay styles, and thus both are equally important and desirable - indeed, they work quite well as a complementary pair, with many people wanting both types of game, to suit varying moods. And hardcore have always been niche, they don't matter.
