Maintenance for the week of May 4:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – May 4
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – May 4
ESO Future for hardcore players
-
Lucious90✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »CromulentForumID wrote: »Justice31st wrote: »
Seasoned gear & Arenas, MLG, Battlegrounds, open world PvP, Better Raids, BoA gear, raid token vendors to name a few.
Compare the amount of content in WoW at three years old, compared to what ESO has now.
It takes time for games to make content. It's pretty unfair to compare content in games that are wildly different in age.
that it does... So why does ZOS push out weak content and can push 4 dlc out a year. It may of taken wow a while to do BC but look at what that content brought. My issue isnt the time frame though @ZOS could be a hell of a lot slower. Its content, same with any other WoW xpac, the content it brought, hell even Cata was a lot larger than what ZOS is putting.
Even then they had the tech all ready to go for some of these. There is a video floating aorund of 1v1v1 pvp play in an arena, we can do without MLG. Setting up their own Arena series makes for a big cash cow..
My whole premise is ZOS can make a crap ton of money by slowing down and following in a WoW model... Call it what it may there is a reason why its the longest lived MMO out right now
Wow also pushed out small content before their first Xpac.
A couple new raids, I think a dungeon or two. And lots of rebalancing and patching.
The reason ZOS can't adopt the WoW content model is because they don't have the same income model. WoW could afford to go years between large releases because they every single player on a monthly subscription. ZOS doesn't have that. They have to maintain a development staff on a more constricted budget, so they have to release incremental DLC to make up for the fact that they don't have as large of a regular predictable income.
If ZOS is going to adopt a WoW content model, they also have to go back to subscription only, because it's the only way to maintain development income between releases.
I know wow did Ive played since vanilla. Rebalancing and patching doesnt bother me if it actually works
ZOS could of adopted it before going F2P..... Unfortunate they can't go back to sub based and I wouldnt support that. slowing down on their release schedule isnt a terrible idea even on a f2p model, allows for a better testing period between xpacs and their team can actually focus on balance and performance inbetween DLC. Where its at now, they keep breaking the game, ive played several times in Cyrodil and been thrown randomly in the air and swalloed by the ground, on top of god awful lag during peak times..... Yes I am running 105 MBPS and play wow 25 man raids and BGs just fine. Because they cant properly test and Im giving them the benefit of the doubt and that they are swamped with their crazy release scheduleXbox/NA
Naturegoat - Stam Warden
Healgoat- Mag temp
Staticgoat- Stam Sorc1 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I think what he means is what we might call "elite players". Hm that is how he described it basically, but then his arguments make even less sense, because a gaming company is never aiming at those 5% of players, who could qualify for that.
Well, they could, but then they would have to make it a subscription game for 300$/month to compensate for alienating the casuals.Edited by Lysette on June 30, 2016 7:48PM0 -
Ffastyl✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Even time invested in unreliable in this labeling. As Extra Credits points out, what has stayed consistent is amount of the depth each group is generally looking for in the experience.ShedsHisTail wrote: »- Lack of Challenge – I can basically one shot anything besides world bosses or 3 squared bosses, Dark Bortherhood was soooo boring for me cause everything died without a challenge, no matter how many mistakes I make, they can barely hit me. The only challenge left in this game is PVP, VMoL, Maelstrom (Veteran).
This is the primary flaw with the game that drives me away. Already, I spend less and less of my time in ESO. Recently I even took a hiatus -- of 2 months. There is a lot to be said on the topic, and not enough calm in me to dive into it. Just read the concept linked in my signature. Implement that and I might find some joy in the combat
As to the issue of challenge...
I agree, at end game, there's not a lot to do if you prefer solo play and dislike PvP.
What would be great is if ZOS added some "Veteran" quests to the various Guild Lines. Semi Short daily or weekly quests issued by the Fighters or Mages guild (since they need some love anyway) which are more in line with the level of challenge the game had at release, or in Beta.
Guild contracts that could only be completed Solo, and maybe provide a special guild currency which you could use to purchase guild-specific motifs or gear. Of course, these would only be made available to players of level 50 who have already completed the guild storyline.
That's a nice concept, and may go a ways towards satisfying this 'urge' if implemented correctly. But as an avid explorer, I want high difficulty in the overworld more than anything else. Presenting not necessarily tough, but always threatening or deadly enemies creates an anticipation of - and intangible reward in - seeing the next little plot of land as well as lend credence to the lore. Tamriel is a deadly place, as all our first and second hand accounts tell us, yet our journey through Tamriel is largely as a tourist. Monsters which any normal person would avoid without proper preparation and backup are brushed to the side as we sprint from one vista to the next.
Enemies do not need to be rawly stronger than the player, though that is a valid method; they should pose a real, tangible threat to the player, individually. Fighting multiple opponents alone should be an engaging balancing act, managing positioning and enemy action through CC and mechanics. Failing a solo attempt, having a passerby jump to your aid is a welcome relief, in contrast to the mild or severe annoyance such an action elicits now. Aside from having good AI, enemies should either have high damage, high health or high harassment. A high damage enemy can kill you if left alone, but has average or low HP, [relatively] easily dispatched. A high health enemy is basically a tank for the AI. They may not have a taunt, but by taking longer to down, the other enemies can deal more damage. High harassment can have low HP and damage or a moderate amount, but specializes in disabling the player or somehow annoying them - constantly peeling attention off of other enemies. Take a look at Thralls/Slaves in Dark Souls 3: they have low HP (1 - 3 hits depending on weapon strength), high mobility and low power, but they use that mobility to lay ambushes, overwhelm the player and jump out of harm's way. Enemies in ESO that cause snare or knockback/stagger or disorient fit into this role.
Implementing instances of solo difficulty like you suggest and like Maelstrom Arena is creating a way for challenge seekers to test their mettle, but these instances are singular spikes in difficulty rather than a consistent curve. Going through the motions of the same instances becomes dull and mundane, losing the spark of adrenaline that attracts players to it in the first place.Edited by Ffastyl on June 30, 2016 7:47PM"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
PC NA
Daggerfall Covenant
Ffastyl - Level 50 Templar
Arturus Amitis - Level 50 Nightblade
Sulac the Wanderer - Level 50 Dragonknight
Arcturus Leland - Level 50 Sorcerer
Azrog rus-Oliphet - Level 50 Templar
Tienc - Level 50 Warden
Aldmeri Dominion
Ashen Willow Knight - Level 50 Templar
Champion Rank 938
Check out:
Old vs New Intro Cinematics
"My strength is that I have no weaknesses. My weakness is that I have no strengths."
Member since May 4th, 2014.2 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I gave a good enough definition of a hardcore gamer throughout this thread. If you think im wrong then explain0 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I think what he means is what we might call "elite players". Hm that is how he described it basically, but then his arguments make even less sense, because a gaming company is never aiming at those 5% of players, who could qualify for that.
Well, they could, but then they would have to make it a subscription game for 300$/month to compensate for alienating the casuals.
yeah your definetly not a scientist. Stay in school kid and let the grown ups talk0 -
Clerics1985✭✭✭Clerics1985 wrote: »BTW Eve online came out in 2003, Pawned your "reason why WoW is the Longest lived MMO out"
Not even going to lie, forgot that game exisited.....
Everquest.... I thought that game died, gotta be some hardcore fans out there, though I heard good things about it...
As for Dueling, thats fine and a great step in the right direction wont be arenas as they havent said anything about that aspect.
Still proves my original debate, long term customer base is needed for an MMO to florish... Everquest especially proves this point, and even Eve online, with its huge learning curve..... A decent established cust base, back with the new guys floating in and out is how you stay afloat
Everquest Next was cancelled - but the original EQ is still going.
As far as EVE goes you are correct, it is based on a very loyal long-term customer base - but this is as well due to how skill is gained in that game - it is time-based, so when you want to fly capital ships, it will take you years to get there. Another reason is that player organizations can actually own space and build empires and battle each other - those might last for years or go under in short - combat is meaningful. Goonswarm Federation has dominated the universe for several years, but this year in the "war in the North" they were driven out of their territory and now their empire is gone, they have to rebuild and conquer some other territory.
meaningful in the aspect that we Get News of Big wars etc. happening in the Game in Real time. Eve online is Awesome in making the world feel like a Living Breathing Mechanism0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭.ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I gave a good enough definition of a hardcore gamer throughout this thread. If you think im wrong then explain
I'm not trying to make you wrong.
I'm trying to get a clear picture of the difference between casual and hardcore, in your mind, without filtering through the last 3 pages and arriving at an assumption. We can't have a conversation if we're talking about different things, so we have to agree on what these terms mean before we can move forward. I'm willing to use your definition, but you're not giving it to me.
Would it be safe to say;
Hardcore: Any player, regardless of time invested, who strives to play on a competitive level.
Casual: Any player, regardless of time invested, who eschews competition and plays purely for recreation?
Is that sufficient? Because that's what I'm getting from you.
Edited by ShedsHisTail on June 30, 2016 7:58PM"As an online discussion of Tamrielic Lore grows longer, the probability of someone blaming a Dragon Break approaches 1." -- Sheds' Law
Have you seen the Twin Lamps?0 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I gave a good enough definition of a hardcore gamer throughout this thread. If you think im wrong then explain
You described a competitive elite player - and those do for certain not pay for the show, because those are roughly 5% of the crowd - if they would have to pay just half of the costs, they would have to pay 150$/month, because they are just 5% - they are certainly not those where most the money is coming from. And so your claim can finally considered to be wrong.Edited by Lysette on June 30, 2016 7:56PM0 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Even time invested in unreliable in this labeling. As Extra Credits points out, what has stayed consistent is amount of the depth each group is generally looking for in the experience.ShedsHisTail wrote: »- Lack of Challenge – I can basically one shot anything besides world bosses or 3 squared bosses, Dark Bortherhood was soooo boring for me cause everything died without a challenge, no matter how many mistakes I make, they can barely hit me. The only challenge left in this game is PVP, VMoL, Maelstrom (Veteran).
This is the primary flaw with the game that drives me away. Already, I spend less and less of my time in ESO. Recently I even took a hiatus -- of 2 months. There is a lot to be said on the topic, and not enough calm in me to dive into it. Just read the concept linked in my signature. Implement that and I might find some joy in the combat
As to the issue of challenge...
I agree, at end game, there's not a lot to do if you prefer solo play and dislike PvP.
What would be great is if ZOS added some "Veteran" quests to the various Guild Lines. Semi Short daily or weekly quests issued by the Fighters or Mages guild (since they need some love anyway) which are more in line with the level of challenge the game had at release, or in Beta.
Guild contracts that could only be completed Solo, and maybe provide a special guild currency which you could use to purchase guild-specific motifs or gear. Of course, these would only be made available to players of level 50 who have already completed the guild storyline.
That's a nice concept, and may go a ways towards satisfying this 'urge' if implemented correctly. But as an avid explorer, I want high difficulty in the overworld more than anything else. Presenting not necessarily tough, but always threatening or deadly enemies creates an anticipation of - and intangible reward in - seeing the next little plot of land as well as lend credence to the lore. Tamriel is a deadly place, as all our first and second hand accounts tell us, yet our journey through Tamriel is largely as a tourist. Monsters which any normal person would avoid without proper preparation and backup are brushed to the side as we sprint from one vista to the next.
Enemies do not need to be rawly stronger than the player, though that is a valid method; they should pose a real, tangible threat to the player, individually. Fighting multiple opponents alone should be an engaging balancing act, managing positioning and enemy action through CC and mechanics. Failing a solo attempt, having a passerby jump to your aid is a welcome relief, in contrast to the mild or severe annoyance such an action elicits now. Aside from having good AI, enemies should either have high damage, high health or high harassment. A high damage enemy can kill you if left alone, but has average or low HP, [relatively] easily dispatched. A high health enemy is basically a tank for the AI. They may not have a taunt, but by taking longer to down, the other enemies can deal more damage. High harassment can have low HP and damage or a moderate amount, but specializes in disabling the player or somehow annoying them - constantly peeling attention off of other enemies. Take a look at Thralls/Slaves in Dark Souls 3: they have low HP (1 - 3 hits depending on weapon strength), high mobility and low power, but they use that mobility to lay ambushes, overwhelm the player and jump out of harm's way. Enemies in ESO that cause snare or knockback/stagger or disorient fit into this role.
Implementing instances of solo difficulty like you suggest and like Maelstrom Arena is creating a way for challenge seekers to test their mettle, but these instances are singular spikes in difficulty rather than a consistent curve. Going through the motions of the same instances becomes dull and mundane, losing the spark of adrenaline that attracts players to it in the first place.
there is always going to be a market for different segments in the industry. finding niche segments is also a great way to get into the gaming industry.0 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I think what he means is what we might call "elite players". Hm that is how he described it basically, but then his arguments make even less sense, because a gaming company is never aiming at those 5% of players, who could qualify for that.
Well, they could, but then they would have to make it a subscription game for 300$/month to compensate for alienating the casuals.
yeah your definetly not a scientist. Stay in school kid and let the grown ups talk
It hurts, when it is shown, that you are wrong - I understand that, but when you are wrong, you are wrong, and that is no reason to insult others. Just learn to deal with it, it will happen quite often in your future life, I can see this from your attitude.3 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: ».ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I gave a good enough definition of a hardcore gamer throughout this thread. If you think im wrong then explain
I'm not trying to make you wrong.
I'm trying to get a clear picture of the difference between casual and hardcore, in your mind, without filtering through the last 3 pages and arriving at an assumption. We can't have a conversation if we're talking about different things, so we have to agree on what these terms mean before we can move forward. I'm willing to use your definition, but you're not giving it to me.
Would it be safe to say;
Hardcore: Any player, regardless of time invested, who strives to play on a competitive level.
Casual: Any player, regardless of time invested, who eschews competition and plays purely for recreation?
Is that sufficient? Because that's what I'm getting from you.
I would also add to hardcore gamers is bragging rights. hardcore gamers are highly competitive and compete for bragging rights amongst other players. In game and in these very forms you will find many examples of this. In order to be competiive and gain bragging rights you need to spend ample time playing the game. so yes, they tend to spend more hours playing in order to achieve this.
I would also add that casual gamers tend to play how they want to play. They are not as serious or competiive as hardcore gamers.
0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I think what he means is what we might call "elite players". Hm that is how he described it basically, but then his arguments make even less sense, because a gaming company is never aiming at those 5% of players, who could qualify for that.
Well, they could, but then they would have to make it a subscription game for 300$/month to compensate for alienating the casuals.
yeah your definetly not a scientist. Stay in school kid and let the grown ups talk
That's really not necessary, man. Especially since you're points haven't been exactly perfect.
Hell, the whole reason I joined in on this conversation is because you brought up the "industry as a whole" and then talked exclusively about consoles."As an online discussion of Tamrielic Lore grows longer, the probability of someone blaming a Dragon Break approaches 1." -- Sheds' Law
Have you seen the Twin Lamps?1 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: ».ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I gave a good enough definition of a hardcore gamer throughout this thread. If you think im wrong then explain
I'm not trying to make you wrong.
I'm trying to get a clear picture of the difference between casual and hardcore, in your mind, without filtering through the last 3 pages and arriving at an assumption. We can't have a conversation if we're talking about different things, so we have to agree on what these terms mean before we can move forward. I'm willing to use your definition, but you're not giving it to me.
Would it be safe to say;
Hardcore: Any player, regardless of time invested, who strives to play on a competitive level.
Casual: Any player, regardless of time invested, who eschews competition and plays purely for recreation?
Is that sufficient? Because that's what I'm getting from you.
I would also add to hardcore gamers is bragging rights. hardcore gamers are highly competitive and compete for bragging rights amongst other players. In game and in these very forms you will find many examples of this. In order to be competiive and gain bragging rights you need to spend ample time playing the game. so yes, they tend to spend more hours playing in order to achieve this.
I would also add that casual gamers tend to play how they want to play. They are not as serious or competiive as hardcore gamers.
See, and with this description your original claim, that most of the money is earned from this group, can simply not be true, because those are just too less compared to the rest of the crowd. That they play more is not bringing in more money, a casual might play less hours per month, but he pays the same subscription and he buys from the crown store, because he does not have the time to achieve that stuff in game - so he is more likely even to buy that from the crown store.Edited by Lysette on June 30, 2016 8:14PM1 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I think what he means is what we might call "elite players". Hm that is how he described it basically, but then his arguments make even less sense, because a gaming company is never aiming at those 5% of players, who could qualify for that.
Well, they could, but then they would have to make it a subscription game for 300$/month to compensate for alienating the casuals.
yeah your definetly not a scientist. Stay in school kid and let the grown ups talk
It hurts, when it is shown, that you are wrong - I understand that, but when you are wrong, you are wrong, and that is no reason to insult others. Just learn to deal with it, it will happen quite often in your future life, I can see this from your attitude.
spoken from someone who knows nothing about business, marketing, or the gaming industry. Also 0 resources where presented on your part. yeah you just have a wealth of knowledge, but just does not want to share it. ill say it again.... stay in school kid you will learn alot there0 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I think what he means is what we might call "elite players". Hm that is how he described it basically, but then his arguments make even less sense, because a gaming company is never aiming at those 5% of players, who could qualify for that.
Well, they could, but then they would have to make it a subscription game for 300$/month to compensate for alienating the casuals.
yeah your definetly not a scientist. Stay in school kid and let the grown ups talk
That's really not necessary, man. Especially since you're points haven't been exactly perfect.
Hell, the whole reason I joined in on this conversation is because you brought up the "industry as a whole" and then talked exclusively about consoles.
im not perfect but he brought nothing to the table. However, you actually did some good fast research. that i respectEdited by Gothren on June 30, 2016 8:15PM0 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I think what he means is what we might call "elite players". Hm that is how he described it basically, but then his arguments make even less sense, because a gaming company is never aiming at those 5% of players, who could qualify for that.
Well, they could, but then they would have to make it a subscription game for 300$/month to compensate for alienating the casuals.
yeah your definetly not a scientist. Stay in school kid and let the grown ups talk
It hurts, when it is shown, that you are wrong - I understand that, but when you are wrong, you are wrong, and that is no reason to insult others. Just learn to deal with it, it will happen quite often in your future life, I can see this from your attitude.
spoken from someone who knows nothing about business, marketing, or the gaming industry. Also 0 resources where presented on your part. yeah you just have a wealth of knowledge, but just does not want to share it. ill say it again.... stay in school kid you will learn alot there
It is anyway pointless to discuss with you, because you have your opinion and nothing ever will change it - you are not open for reason at all - so I will just ignore you now to never have to see something from you again.0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭ShedsHisTail wrote: ».ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I gave a good enough definition of a hardcore gamer throughout this thread. If you think im wrong then explain
I'm not trying to make you wrong.
I'm trying to get a clear picture of the difference between casual and hardcore, in your mind, without filtering through the last 3 pages and arriving at an assumption. We can't have a conversation if we're talking about different things, so we have to agree on what these terms mean before we can move forward. I'm willing to use your definition, but you're not giving it to me.
Would it be safe to say;
Hardcore: Any player, regardless of time invested, who strives to play on a competitive level.
Casual: Any player, regardless of time invested, who eschews competition and plays purely for recreation?
Is that sufficient? Because that's what I'm getting from you.
I would also add to hardcore gamers is bragging rights. hardcore gamers are highly competitive and compete for bragging rights amongst other players. In game and in these very forms you will find many examples of this. In order to be competiive and gain bragging rights you need to spend ample time playing the game. so yes, they tend to spend more hours playing in order to achieve this.
I would also add that casual gamers tend to play how they want to play. They are not as serious or competiive as hardcore gamers.
Okay, so, my summaries of your definitions are fine. Though you admit that a hardcore player would probably invest more time than a casual player.
Now, using these definitions....
***, I spent so much time trying to get a definition out of you I forgot the point I was going to make. That said, according to the ESA report I posted, on average, the most frequent repeat players play 6.5 Hours per week. Less than an hour a day across all platforms across all genres. That is your largest audience, right there.
Now, while it's likely a number of those -want- to be competitive, I think we can both agree that less than an hour a day isn't time enough to actually -be- competitive. They can't qualify as hardcore, per your definition, because they simply can't devote time enough to it to achieve anything worthy of the bragging rights you claim they desire. They aren't -highly- competitive, because they won't sacrifice other aspects of their lives for the game. "Hardcore competitive" players, per your definition, simply cannot represent a significant majority of the population... let alone the -paying- population.
"As an online discussion of Tamrielic Lore grows longer, the probability of someone blaming a Dragon Break approaches 1." -- Sheds' Law
Have you seen the Twin Lamps?0 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: ».ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I gave a good enough definition of a hardcore gamer throughout this thread. If you think im wrong then explain
I'm not trying to make you wrong.
I'm trying to get a clear picture of the difference between casual and hardcore, in your mind, without filtering through the last 3 pages and arriving at an assumption. We can't have a conversation if we're talking about different things, so we have to agree on what these terms mean before we can move forward. I'm willing to use your definition, but you're not giving it to me.
Would it be safe to say;
Hardcore: Any player, regardless of time invested, who strives to play on a competitive level.
Casual: Any player, regardless of time invested, who eschews competition and plays purely for recreation?
Is that sufficient? Because that's what I'm getting from you.
I would also add to hardcore gamers is bragging rights. hardcore gamers are highly competitive and compete for bragging rights amongst other players. In game and in these very forms you will find many examples of this. In order to be competiive and gain bragging rights you need to spend ample time playing the game. so yes, they tend to spend more hours playing in order to achieve this.
I would also add that casual gamers tend to play how they want to play. They are not as serious or competiive as hardcore gamers.
Okay, so, my summaries of your definitions are fine. Though you admit that a hardcore player would probably invest more time than a casual player.
Now, using these definitions....
***, I spent so much time trying to get a definition out of you I forgot the point I was going to make. That said, according to the ESA report I posted, on average, the most frequent repeat players play 6.5 Hours per week. Less than an hour a day across all platforms across all genres. That is your largest audience, right there.
Now, while it's likely a number of those -want- to be competitive, I think we can both agree that less than an hour a day isn't time enough to actually -be- competitive. They can't qualify as hardcore, per your definition, because they simply can't devote time enough to it to achieve anything worthy of the bragging rights you claim they desire. They aren't -highly- competitive, because they won't sacrifice other aspects of their lives for the game. "Hardcore competitive" players, per your definition, simply cannot represent a significant majority of the population... let alone the -paying- population.
I tried to explain that to him several times, just like you did - he will not comply, he has his opinion and nothing will change this, He is not a person who goes for reason and accepts, if he is wrong, he wants to be right, regardless what.0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: ».ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I gave a good enough definition of a hardcore gamer throughout this thread. If you think im wrong then explain
I'm not trying to make you wrong.
I'm trying to get a clear picture of the difference between casual and hardcore, in your mind, without filtering through the last 3 pages and arriving at an assumption. We can't have a conversation if we're talking about different things, so we have to agree on what these terms mean before we can move forward. I'm willing to use your definition, but you're not giving it to me.
Would it be safe to say;
Hardcore: Any player, regardless of time invested, who strives to play on a competitive level.
Casual: Any player, regardless of time invested, who eschews competition and plays purely for recreation?
Is that sufficient? Because that's what I'm getting from you.
I would also add to hardcore gamers is bragging rights. hardcore gamers are highly competitive and compete for bragging rights amongst other players. In game and in these very forms you will find many examples of this. In order to be competiive and gain bragging rights you need to spend ample time playing the game. so yes, they tend to spend more hours playing in order to achieve this.
I would also add that casual gamers tend to play how they want to play. They are not as serious or competiive as hardcore gamers.
Okay, so, my summaries of your definitions are fine. Though you admit that a hardcore player would probably invest more time than a casual player.
Now, using these definitions....
***, I spent so much time trying to get a definition out of you I forgot the point I was going to make. That said, according to the ESA report I posted, on average, the most frequent repeat players play 6.5 Hours per week. Less than an hour a day across all platforms across all genres. That is your largest audience, right there.
Now, while it's likely a number of those -want- to be competitive, I think we can both agree that less than an hour a day isn't time enough to actually -be- competitive. They can't qualify as hardcore, per your definition, because they simply can't devote time enough to it to achieve anything worthy of the bragging rights you claim they desire. They aren't -highly- competitive, because they won't sacrifice other aspects of their lives for the game. "Hardcore competitive" players, per your definition, simply cannot represent a significant majority of the population... let alone the -paying- population.
I tried to explain that to him several times, just like you did - he will not comply, he has his opinion and nothing will change this, He is not a person who goes for reason and accepts, if he is wrong, he wants to be right, regardless what.
You didn't have pictures.
"As an online discussion of Tamrielic Lore grows longer, the probability of someone blaming a Dragon Break approaches 1." -- Sheds' Law
Have you seen the Twin Lamps?0 -
Ffastyl✭✭✭✭✭I also will not stand for petty insults.
Back to the ESA article... it seems to include mobile and wireless games in its statistics. While not an avid phone gamer myself, games for this platform tend to focus on short play sessions and will skew the statistics if we want to look at console and PC exclusively."A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
PC NA
Daggerfall Covenant
Ffastyl - Level 50 Templar
Arturus Amitis - Level 50 Nightblade
Sulac the Wanderer - Level 50 Dragonknight
Arcturus Leland - Level 50 Sorcerer
Azrog rus-Oliphet - Level 50 Templar
Tienc - Level 50 Warden
Aldmeri Dominion
Ashen Willow Knight - Level 50 Templar
Champion Rank 938
Check out:
Old vs New Intro Cinematics
"My strength is that I have no weaknesses. My weakness is that I have no strengths."
Member since May 4th, 2014.0 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I also will not stand for petty insults.
Back to the ESA article... it seems to include mobile and wireless games in its statistics. While not an avid phone gamer myself, games for this platform tend to focus on short play sessions and will skew the statistics if we want to look at console and PC exclusively.
But we don't do that - he said "the whole gaming industry"-.0 -
Eshelmen✭✭✭✭✭Smaller DLCs with the reasoning that people are playing more off and on instead of continuously is one way to put it. But the reason can as well lay bit deeper - as in it takes Bethesda longer than expected to develop their 2 new main titles and TES VI will for longer than expected not come out - and ESO has to fill the gap. Don't know if it is that way, but it could be.
So you're saying they're purposely slowing down content release for ESO to give the ES 6 team a bit more time?Edited by Eshelmen on June 30, 2016 8:54PMPC and PS4 EP only player0 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Smaller DLCs with the reasoning that people are playing more off and on instead of continuously is one way to put it. But the reason can as well lay bit deeper - as in it takes Bethesda longer than expected to develop their 2 new main titles and TES VI will for longer than expected not come out - and ESO has to fill the gap. Don't know if it is that way, but it could be.
So you're saying they're purposely slowing down content release for ESO to give the ES 6 team a bit more time?
That is what I suggested - it is a guess of course, but it could be an additional reason.0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭I also will not stand for petty insults.
Back to the ESA article... it seems to include mobile and wireless games in its statistics. While not an avid phone gamer myself, games for this platform tend to focus on short play sessions and will skew the statistics if we want to look at console and PC exclusively.
That's true.
But we're looking at the "industry as a whole."
Also, Pages 10 and 11 specifically break down Consoles and PC games, excluding handhelds and mobile devices. That was my original point of reference as it was most relevant to the point I was making."As an online discussion of Tamrielic Lore grows longer, the probability of someone blaming a Dragon Break approaches 1." -- Sheds' Law
Have you seen the Twin Lamps?1 -
cosmic_niklas_93b16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I think what he means is what we might call "elite players". Hm that is how he described it basically, but then his arguments make even less sense, because a gaming company is never aiming at those 5% of players, who could qualify for that.
Well, they could, but then they would have to make it a subscription game for 300$/month to compensate for alienating the casuals.
If they made an actually good game with that instead of the crap that we got atm, I'd pay that amount without thinking twice about it. :PR.I.P. Daranth Spellborn
VR16 Dunmer Sorcerer
March 2014 - May 2016
He was a skilled Crafter and a reliable Sorcerer;
Then came the Dark Brotherhood
Wrobel wrote: Surge is now more effective for tank characters.
Because crit tanks are so good, LOL. xD0 -
Justice31st✭✭✭✭✭
✭I think that might be, because it has a different focus. ESO is about Tamriel and we basically know what will be coming, the rest of Tamriel over time. So this is the focus of the game rather than "end game". And when you look at the empty parts of the map yet, a lot more DLCs will be about this content than about anything else. Has to, if they want to complete it before TES VI will come out. Both could co-exist, but by economical reasons, they should complete it, before TES VI will be there.
Well, apparently ESO has a long long time before TES VI since Bethesda said that it's a LONG LONG ways off, that they don't even have the technology available yet for how they envision TES VI.
Imagine how TES VI is going to be in virtual reality."The more you know who you are, and what you want, the less you let things upset you."0 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭Let's get him banned from the forum that he can cool down - I reported him twice and said as well that other players are as well not fond of this kind of insults. Now he has insulted as well @ShedsHisTail and called him a moron - he really needs a break.
tellsShedsHisTail wrote: »Callous2208 wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: ».ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I gave a good enough definition of a hardcore gamer throughout this thread. If you think im wrong then explain
I'm not trying to make you wrong.
I'm trying to get a clear picture of the difference between casual and hardcore, in your mind, without filtering through the last 3 pages and arriving at an assumption. We can't have a conversation if we're talking about different things, so we have to agree on what these terms mean before we can move forward. I'm willing to use your definition, but you're not giving it to me.
Would it be safe to say;
Hardcore: Any player, regardless of time invested, who strives to play on a competitive level.
Casual: Any player, regardless of time invested, who eschews competition and plays purely for recreation?
Is that sufficient? Because that's what I'm getting from you.
I would also add to hardcore gamers is bragging rights. hardcore gamers are highly competitive and compete for bragging rights amongst other players. In game and in these very forms you will find many examples of this. In order to be competiive and gain bragging rights you need to spend ample time playing the game. so yes, they tend to spend more hours playing in order to achieve this.
I would also add that casual gamers tend to play how they want to play. They are not as serious or competiive as hardcore gamers.
Okay, so, my summaries of your definitions are fine. Though you admit that a hardcore player would probably invest more time than a casual player.
Now, using these definitions....
***, I spent so much time trying to get a definition out of you I forgot the point I was going to make. That said, according to the ESA report I posted, on average, the most frequent repeat players play 6.5 Hours per week. Less than an hour a day across all platforms across all genres. That is your largest audience, right there.
Now, while it's likely a number of those -want- to be competitive, I think we can both agree that less than an hour a day isn't time enough to actually -be- competitive. They can't qualify as hardcore, per your definition, because they simply can't devote time enough to it to achieve anything worthy of the bragging rights you claim they desire. They aren't -highly- competitive, because they won't sacrifice other aspects of their lives for the game. "Hardcore competitive" players, per your definition, simply cannot represent a significant majority of the population... let alone the -paying- population.ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: ».ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I gave a good enough definition of a hardcore gamer throughout this thread. If you think im wrong then explain
I'm not trying to make you wrong.
I'm trying to get a clear picture of the difference between casual and hardcore, in your mind, without filtering through the last 3 pages and arriving at an assumption. We can't have a conversation if we're talking about different things, so we have to agree on what these terms mean before we can move forward. I'm willing to use your definition, but you're not giving it to me.
Would it be safe to say;
Hardcore: Any player, regardless of time invested, who strives to play on a competitive level.
Casual: Any player, regardless of time invested, who eschews competition and plays purely for recreation?
Is that sufficient? Because that's what I'm getting from you.
I would also add to hardcore gamers is bragging rights. hardcore gamers are highly competitive and compete for bragging rights amongst other players. In game and in these very forms you will find many examples of this. In order to be competiive and gain bragging rights you need to spend ample time playing the game. so yes, they tend to spend more hours playing in order to achieve this.
I would also add that casual gamers tend to play how they want to play. They are not as serious or competiive as hardcore gamers.
Okay, so, my summaries of your definitions are fine. Though you admit that a hardcore player would probably invest more time than a casual player.
Now, using these definitions....
***, I spent so much time trying to get a definition out of you I forgot the point I was going to make. That said, according to the ESA report I posted, on average, the most frequent repeat players play 6.5 Hours per week. Less than an hour a day across all platforms across all genres. That is your largest audience, right there.
Now, while it's likely a number of those -want- to be competitive, I think we can both agree that less than an hour a day isn't time enough to actually -be- competitive. They can't qualify as hardcore, per your definition, because they simply can't devote time enough to it to achieve anything worthy of the bragging rights you claim they desire. They aren't -highly- competitive, because they won't sacrifice other aspects of their lives for the game. "Hardcore competitive" players, per your definition, simply cannot represent a significant majority of the population... let alone the -paying- population.
my very first orginal point is that they generate the most sales period. casual gamers dont even come close despite a shift toward casual gaming. That other idiot cannot get it through his thick skull that the revenues generated more toward hardcore gamers. the average time invested does not tell you what so ever which segment is earning more profits for the entire industry at all.
Based on what? Showing me the Xbox and PS4 sold more copies than the Wii proves nothing. There are a thousand reasons for that that go way beyond competitive vs non-competitive gaming.
And, seriously, stop with the insults or I will report you. It doesn't contribute anything and makes you look foolish.
oh you mean the entire console industry that is specifically catered to that segment.
The same can be said for online games. online gaming has one of the highest hardcore gaming populatons in the gaming industry. That other idiot said hardcore gamers are not in MMO's. He is a moron and is dead wrong. Moreover, I do not care about that guys sensitivites. when you say stupid stuff like that expect to be called out on it "scientist".
You just don't have the evidence to make such bold claims about consoles in general. I don't even know what led you to this conclusion. In fact, in many pc circles, console gaming has always been jokingly referred to as "casual gaming." You know, pc master race and all that noise. You're starting to talk out of your rear end to save face.
ok moron number 2... let me speak slowly to you.... the market position of this product is for hardcore gamers because thats what sony wants to be in at this very moment. its ads and marketing highlight this. understand moron number 2?
That's true. Sony is trying to get the attention of the more hardcore crowd; but it's doing this because the other two popular consoles are -not-.
As per this release from the Euro Effie Awards (the "Gold Standard in Marketing Communications Effectiveness"):
http://www.euro-effie.com/transfert/Euro_Effies/2015/SONY.pdf
You'll note that under target audience they do mention the hardcore gamer. Incidentally, they also note the Mainstream gamer.
hardcore gamers are the majority of their gamer base. thx for proving my orginal point. also every company has some title or product that offers to the masses. thats why they call it "targeting" a specific group.0 -
Callous2208✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Justice31st wrote: »I think that might be, because it has a different focus. ESO is about Tamriel and we basically know what will be coming, the rest of Tamriel over time. So this is the focus of the game rather than "end game". And when you look at the empty parts of the map yet, a lot more DLCs will be about this content than about anything else. Has to, if they want to complete it before TES VI will come out. Both could co-exist, but by economical reasons, they should complete it, before TES VI will be there.
Well, apparently ESO has a long long time before TES VI since Bethesda said that it's a LONG LONG ways off, that they don't even have the technology available yet for how they envision TES VI.
Imagine how TES VI is going to be in virtual reality.
Don't tease me with these thoughts. My body is ready.
0 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭cosmic_niklas_93b16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »@Gothren
In regards to Page 11, I'm referring to the best selling games:
For consoles you've got 11 of your Top 20 titles are directly competitive games, either sports or shooters; if I counted right. I'm not certain on the details of every one of them.
Whereas for PC, 19 of the 20 Top sellers are Sandbox/RPGs or RPG expansions which my or may not contain competitive elements.
I don't like the terms Casual and Hardcore... They're too nebulous. Your definition differs from mine, I can already see that.
If you want to use those terms, please define them first so we can discuss them in the same context.
Being labeled a casual can have a negative stigma to some gamers. However, I don't believe that should be the case. Different gamers have different motivations for playing many types of games. I tend to think of the typical hardcore gamer as a serious gamer who has to compete at the highest level. For example, to have the highest score or time in competing an objective or their ranking among their peers in a particular game.
Yeah, that's still pretty vague.
you will get slightly different meanings from different people in the gaming industry. However, one thing to point out is the differences in the time invested in playing games.
Say a person played an hour a day.
What would you call them?
They can be either a hardcore or casual gamer. The casual gamer typically spends less time, but does not necessarily automatically make you a casual just because of a small time investment.
So, I'm not actually going to get any manner of definition out of you, am I?
I think what he means is what we might call "elite players". Hm that is how he described it basically, but then his arguments make even less sense, because a gaming company is never aiming at those 5% of players, who could qualify for that.
Well, they could, but then they would have to make it a subscription game for 300$/month to compensate for alienating the casuals.
If they made an actually good game with that instead of the crap that we got atm, I'd pay that amount without thinking twice about it. :P
I believe you, but would all the other hardcore gamers be able to do the same?- And they would have to, to make this work.0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭Okay... Now, get we get back to talking about how ZOS can keep this game interesting for hardcore and end-game players?"As an online discussion of Tamrielic Lore grows longer, the probability of someone blaming a Dragon Break approaches 1." -- Sheds' Law
Have you seen the Twin Lamps?0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pL4AzGBAsU