First off, ready yourself for a read. Second, the first four paragraphs are a sort of background/extra information, so for those who merely wish to read what I have to say, go ahead and skip the first four paragraphs. And lastly, the first person who finds all my subtle jokes wins a cookie.
Background Info) For this thread, whenever the word ‘casual’ or ‘hardcore’ is used, pretend that there are “ “ around it, simply for the fact that I don’t like the words “casuals” and “hardcore” because the meaning of each can be so different between different users, and as such I would always put quotation marks around it. I’m lazy though, so I’m not going to bother, but I thought I’d let everyone know.
Background Info) For the point of this thread, hardcore are those that buy games as soon as it comes out (or quickly thereafter), play many different types of games, buy many games per year, play many hours a week, and has a hard core. Casuals are those that don’t buy too many games a year, play games regularly over the course of a few weeks, but not amounting to very much, and casually play games (meaning they don’t throw the controller at the TV when they fail hard). I will not say which games a hardcore player would play compared to a casual player, because the games they play can be one in the same. Games like Halo 3, Grand Theft Auto, Super Smash Bros series, and Guitar Hero series are types of games that cater to both hardcore and casuals players, so I find defining a player only by what games he/she plays doesn’t represent what type of player he/she really is. But the point of this thread is not to go into defining hardcore and casual players.
Extra Info) It has recently come to my attention that many people seem to dislike the casual way of gaming, and even dislike the “non-causal” gaming community more. Games like Mario and Sonic, Carnival Games, Endless Ocean, Big Brain Academy, Trauma Center, and Ninjabread Man get pounded for not having an quality single player mode, which usually means they lack a good story or the game play isn’t all that fun in the single player mode, and being too simplistic (or too hard; see Trauma Center: New Blood). These games (Mario and Sonic and Carnival Games usually) are brought up constantly and then bashed for getting mediocre reviews yet selling extremely well. And the reasons why they got those scores have been debated to death, citing reasons such as: a lack of understanding of this new market, reviewers who mark down games due to not liking that genre, reviewers not understanding how to play the game, or they fail to play the game in the kind of environment in which the game is meant to be played (i.e. multiplayer), and other reasons. But that is not the point of this thread.
Extra Info) The main reason this has come up was the lack of good sales of hardcore games on the Wii, while “really” casual games (like Mario and Sonic) beat the living daylights out of many of the hardcore games on the Wii, and beat a lot of hardcore games on the 360/PS3. It seems that many people (though not all) label games as either “hardcore” or “casual” (quotation marks added for emphasis), even though any game can be played in a “hardcore” way.
One fine example is WiiSports. Even I wouldn’t call that game a hardcore game, it got ok reviews, and is usually bashed for selling so well (at least in Japan, where it’s in the top 25 best selling games after only a year). But just because it doesn’t have a deep first player mode, lacks online multiplayer, and the graphics aren’t that great doesn’t mean it can’t be played in a hardcore way. Many people play that game so much that they have master techniques in the game that I think many (including myself) don’t even realize are in the game. And playing them would be like being strangled by a nunchuck cord. Now that’s hardcore. But you cannot just label a game as “hardcore” or “casual.” But the point of this thread is not to discuss how to label games, is it?
Main Topic) Finally, the point of this whole thread (thought you’d never get here, didn’t you?). What is the point of this thread (for those who actually read the first 4 paragraphs are probably tired of me saying “this is not the point of the thread”)? The point is to show how casual gamers (as defined in the 2nd paragraph) have kept the gaming industry as we know it alive and kicking.
Point 1) Though casuals may not buy as many games as hardcore players might, and thus the attach rate for them will be (much) lower, it’s important to remember that since there are so many of them, their combined software purchases add up really fast.
For example, I would expect that the number of PS2 owners who were of the casual sort probably numbered in the range of 70-90 million, so say 80 million for simplicity sake. That means that roughly 40 million were hardcore. I would even be willing to bet to say as many as 100 million of PS2 owners were actually casuals owners, but there’s no way to prove it.
How do I come up with these numbers? I added up the best selling game for each of the best selling series on the PS2. Those games are: GTA:SA, GT3, FFX, MGS2, KH, DQVIII. Add up their sales and you get: 53.83 million units sold. That’s not even 50% of the userbase, and that’s only if every person who bought one of those games didn’t buy any of the other games. I’d imagine that the number of people total who bought any combination of those games to be around 25-35 million. Which is about what I have for the number of hardcore users, depending on which numbers you use. And of course, GTA:SA has been known as a heavy casual game, and I’ll show you why later.
Also, according to Sony’s financial records, total shipments of PS2 titles through March 2007 sits at around 1240 million units, meaning those 6 games that I mentioned only make up 4-6% of the entire game library of PS2 games when it comes to shipped units. Even when you combine all the different games from each of those series, you only get about 150 million units, which might be a bit high, but still only 12-15% of the total software sales. Meaning that much lesser known games, and games that would attract the casuals, such as SpongeBob: Battle (which sold 1.5 million units on the PS2), are abundant on the PS2 (and consoles in general). Even with lower sales of the casual games, they make up for in the sheer number of those types of games.
Point 2) Another way that casuals keep the industry alive and kicking are the way that they keep a game selling well past the initial launch of a game. And this works for just about any game, as long as it’s good enough to continue selling.
Take for example Final Fantasy X in Japan. FFX is normally considered a top heavy game that caters to the extremely hardcore RPG group, or more specifically, the JRPG group (though I have no idea what the difference is). I’m using Japan in this case because it’s the only one that has weekly sales for FFX. Also, I’ll consider legs as anything that is sold beyond the first 10 weeks after a game is released, which is roughly 2.5 months after launch.
After the first 10 weeks, FFX had sold (in Japan) 2.4 million units. And that’s nothing to laugh about. Then during the next TWO years it sold another 600k, an average of 5k a week (in Japan). That might not look like a lot weekly, like SMG which is selling 5k a week in Japan now, but over 2 years that can really add up. And probably if FFXII (skipping FFXI because it was an MMO) hadn’t come out, it would have continued to sell and probably could have reached 3.5 million (in Japan alone).
For the most part, those 600k over the two years were mostly casual players who were walking into to a gaming store, asking for a good game to play, and were recommended FFX. I highly doubt many hardcore players were buying the game 2 years after launch, unless they were extremely poor or not with the times at all. And the difference between 2.4 million sold and 3 million sold might not seem like a lot (since either way it’s a million seller), but to SE, I bet those 600k was just lovely pocket change that they used to fund other game projects. I mean, after 2.4 million in Japan alone, I bet the game was already very profitable, so another 600k at an average price of $25 (the game would get discounted eventually and I no idea what that would be in yens) would be another 15 million in revenue (though of course not all of that would go to SE). And $15 million is nothing to laugh at.
Another great example would be GTA:SA. First 10 weeks it sold an amazing 5.5 million or so in America alone. The next 3 years? Sold an additional 2.75 million, an average of only 15k a week. How terrible is 15k a week? It’s ok. But over 3 years selling a constant 15k a week, adds up really fast. And you can thank casuals for that. Again, I’m sure that Rockstar would have been happy selling 5.5 million units worldwide, more or less in NA alone, and selling another 2.75 million units over the course of 3 years, I bet they couldn’t have been happier, since that would make them A LOT of money. Nearly 68 million revenue at $25 (discounts) a game. Again, that doesn’t go to them completely, but still, even if they only got $10 a game, that’s still 27 million dollars, or 13.75 million dollars at $5 a game. I’d take that any day. And then I’d retire.
The examples are numerous, and any good game can probably thank casuals for the long legs of the game, which during any particular week might not look that great, overtime really add up. Just to point out a few:
Kingdom Hearts in Japan: First 10 weeks: 766k; LTD: 1.24 million; difference: 474k
GH2 in NA: First 10 weeks: 1.68 million; LTD: 3.52 million; difference: 1.84 million
Lego Star Wars in NA: first 10 weeks: 400k; LTD: 1.92 million; difference: 1.52 million
I think you get the point.
Problem 1) So finally, here we are. And where are we, you ask. Well, the problem, as of this writing, 2/25/2008, 3:34PM Eastern Time, many traditional hardcore games are on the PS3/360, while almost all casual games are on the Wii. Without the casual market, PS3/360 can’t (generally) have those massive sales, nor can they have sustained legs, while without many hardcore games, the Wii sells a lot of casual games, which sell well anyway, and thus seem to dominate the charts.
Problem 2) And there’s a bigger problem when you start looking closer. Without casuals, even games that do well (sell 1+ million) might not do as well as the developers/publishers would have hoped. GTA:SA sold 15 million units, GTA:VC sold 14 million units, and GTA3 sold 11 million units. What if GTA4 comes out and only sells 7 million units between the 360/PS3 worldwide? Would that be considered a flop? No it wouldn’t. But would it be the huge success that GTA:SA was? Not really. With rising costs, and lower sales, 7 million wouldn’t be all that great, especially for a franchise that targets so many demographics.
With higher costs this generation, you can’t alienate the casual users, like Microsoft and Sony have done so far into the generation. As Bodhesatva was discussing in another thread, costs are risings, and profit is falling, what are companies to do? Increase game prices? Charge for online services? Downloadable content? How can companies stay profitable and healthy if they can’t reach every demographic, because certain demographics are pushed aside for the “supreme” demographic, the hardcore players?
Riot of the Blood and I were having a discussion about 3rd party sales on the Wii, which is what sparked this thread (and two other threads I’m going to be working on). He specifically pointed out No More Heroes, which has sold 400k to retail around the world so far. The “great” sales of this game have caused the developers to actually hold a party. But Riot doesn’t think it’s a niche game and should be able to sell a million. And without knowing how well the game will sell in Europe/Others, I can’t say for sure, but it has a very good chance of hitting a million in the long term. If it sells 10k a week between Europe(after it’s initial release) and NA, and if it makes it to roughly 300k after Europe release, it’ll take a year a half to get to a million, but it definitely has a shot. And why does it have a shot? Casuals. Casuals FTW.
Conclusion) So the next time you bring up how great a game has sold, but then bash a “casual” game, and say it doesn’t deserve the sales it’s getting, or whine that a casual game is selling better than some traditional games, then I’d like you to stop and consider how well (or not so well) a traditional hardcore game would have sold without the casual market.
Thank you for your time, and discuss.
P.S. I'd like to thank Riot for motivation to not do my college work and do something totally unproductive! 
Currently Online 
