Eddie_Raja said:
mornelithe said:
Yeah, the problem is the vast majority of those folks, don't actually contribute to the industry (freemium). And many many of those people don't consider themselves 'gamers' because they play a time wasting app on a phone. Someone else raised a good question, about those who self-identify as gamer's vs those who just play a random game here and there.
It's not necessarily that someone else games differently than me, it's do those people consider themselves gamers? Either way though, I don't 'really' care, I can just see the point being made that there's a very real difference between how the two groups contribute to the industry.
|
Maybe not with that game, but that is in many ways a "Gateway Drug." It may be candy crush now, but it could possibly opens their mind to other gaming possibilities they would have previously written off.
People said the same stuff about the Wii, and yet it brought gaming to a lot of "Non-Gamers." That is never a bad thing.
|
That's definitely true, and it'd be an interesting study to find a linkage between freemium/social media games and those who go into gaming further as a result. Much of the stigma could simply be lack of knowledge around others gaming habits. Entirely plausible, but there's really not any studies that prove it definitively either. What we do know is that your retail/digital $60 show nowhere near the kind of active user population as some of these freemium titles. So, that would stand in contrast to assuming they're a gateway for a large portion of those individuals.
