So all "spoiled gamers" are actually "enthusiast gamers"? But his/her opinions on the casual market are immediate cause for a different label? ie "spoiled gamer"?

Please...this just screams of a defensive reaction by some (more then likely considered 'casual/blue ocean') gamers unhappy that 'hardcore' gamers consider themselves more 'true gamers' then themselves and the instinctive knee jerk reaction is to pin a derogatory label on them.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_gamer


"Equivalent pairings to polarise consumers could have ranged from 'old-school' & 'mainstream', 'elitist' & 'easy-going' to 'dedicated' & 'uninformed'. However conjecture, based on the history of changes in the games industry, would suggest the choices of casual and hardcore were not arbitrary."

You could choose a different term, but consumers and the media understand the term for what it is, even if the definition isn't perfect and clear cut rules for 'Hardcore Gamers' don't exist.

I strongly agree with Sky Render here. Having labels established to generalize groups of people is never a good idea. Identifying yourself is much less ambiguous than using labels that others will interpret differently.

NO! Look at the OP again!

No, they'd be Elitist Jerks. Are they still around?

I am going to stick with hardcore

Sure they still are and are kicking butt :)

I think they were in the top 15 US Kil Jaeden kills..

PS : If people that answered me had any experience of playing wow they would know the people I am talking off fit exactly in the categorie you guys are trying to rename...

After giving it thoughts, call us all Elitists Jerks, we're fine with the title :p

Notice each time someone is trying to redefine the term hardcore he's a Wii owner though. You guys really eat that Nintendo marketing stuff...

@Ail: I wasn't reinventing terms (ok, i did with "elitist pricks", but that is a term that describes ones behavior which is often seen at different forums). Core and blue ocean are actual terms used to describe the "existing audience" and "expanded audience". As you can see, while the blue ocean audience establishes itself, it moves to core market expanding the actual core.
We could split the core market to segments even further, based on gaming habits (which eventually would create an endless number of segments). Before the blue ocean gamers (which can be split to different categories too) move to core market, it's impossible to say, into which segment they eventually end up.

The segments are still very important, atleast to developer and publisher, to know who they make their games for. This has a lot to do with the games type. For example, Brain Training was a blue ocean game to target previous non-gaming audience, while NSMB got a lot of lapsed gamers (a blue ocean group) to play it. Metroid Prime 3, was a core game that targeted the existing gamers, just like SMG did too. MP3 was also a "higher tier" game than SMG, since it required longer play sessions.
Mario Kart Wii is a prime example of a bridged game, that appeals to both, the core and the blue ocean. So simple to start with, that it basically doesn't require any learning curve, but so sophisticated, that mastering the game takes a lot of time.

When you look at the high selling games, they all have one thing in common; their developers have understood the market the game has made for.

I re-read your original post twice more to clarify. Heres exactly what you've stated:

Enthusiast gamers: Play a lot, are loyal.

Spolied Gamers: Gamers that are opposed to casual games and hold certain views on companies and gamers who engage in creating or playing casual games.

Now, spoiled gamers obviously tick the first box in "enthusiast gamers". (They're hardcore after all, so they play a lot.)

So we come to the second section. Loyalty.

Were you trying to imply that spoiled gamers are not loyal towards the perception of "gaming" as a whole?

How do you ascertain who fits into this category or not? Can a JRPG fan who has an outspoken dislike for FPS be considered a "spoiled gamer" or vice versa?

Millions would fit that category.

Yet, you've stated the cause is only "To play games".

Which spolied/hardcore gamers most certainly do.

So, so far as I can judge from your overly simple descriptions: Spoiled gamers ARE enthusiast gamers with a different name tacked on; purely based on their views and opinions of the casual gaming market.

The whole notion is absurd.

If enough people have an opinion (new gamers and the games they like are not bad), and enough people have a different opinion (they are bad), that is enough of a difference to qualify as different groups that are largely the same. It's not different than a fan a fanboy. For the former, the other side isn't bad, for the latter, it is bad.

The same thing applies here. How is that absurd when it's a real thing?

BTW, I misread your first post, but it's still off. The spoiled gamers in this case are enthusiast gamers, who let their enthusiasm go too far, and their loyalty is misplaced, which is not to the health of gaming, but only to the health of their kind of gaming.

(I have to wonder if companies like Valve had broken through to the mainstream and not Pop Cap, and if Nintendo had made the Wii an HD system and a hit with games like Fire Emblem, and not the system it is and a hit with Wii Sports, they wouldn't mind so much, no matter how unrealistic that thought would be)