ESO Future for hardcore players
-
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Just what I thought as well, back to topic - I wonder what will be the Q4 surprise as DLC - we know housing will be Q1 next year, but what is coming in Q4?Edited by Lysette on June 30, 2016 9:30PM0 -
DjSolJAH✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »Okay... Now, get we get back to talking about how ZOS can keep this game interesting for hardcore and end-game players?
1. Scale up content (which they are doing)
2. Fix the lag(they probably will never do)Zee blues are coming!!!! Always.... Always coming...0 -
ZOS_DaryaKadminWe've removed a series of comments that started with insulting language that continued. We've removed all responses related to those posts even though some of them did contain constructive points because it was too difficult to remove the offensive comments from the valid points.
We've had to moderate this discussion more than once; please keep your comments civil and constructive or we will close this thread.The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited - ZeniMax Online Studios
Forum Rules | Code of Conduct | Terms of Service | Home Page | Help Site1 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭But is One Tamriel with it's scaling solving the problem? Is that challenging enough for them?0 -
Callous2208✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »Okay... Now, get we get back to talking about how ZOS can keep this game interesting for hardcore and end-game players?
I think they have a tough task on their hands, but it can be done. Content as far as new trials and dungeons is a must. Along with the dlc continuation of story quests and things. QoL features like housing/guild housing may have a positive impact for some. A better overall pvp experience would really cement the game as one to always come back to. If they could just fix the issues that plague Cyro at times and continue to add new and exciting objectives and "modes" if you will, that would be a nice draw. Pretty much just iron out the little things and then plow forward with new content.1 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭ZOS_DaryaK wrote: »We've removed a series of comments that started with insulting language that continued. We've removed all responses related to those posts even though some of them did contain constructive points because it was too difficult to remove the offensive comments from the valid points.
We've had to moderate this discussion more than once; please keep your comments civil and constructive or we will close this thread.
Mutually assured destruction... Gotta love it."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 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭Callous2208 wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »Okay... Now, get we get back to talking about how ZOS can keep this game interesting for hardcore and end-game players?
I think they have a tough task on their hands, but it can be done. Content as far as new trials and dungeons is a must. Along with the dlc continuation of story quests and things. QoL features like housing/guild housing may have a positive impact for some. A better overall pvp experience would really cement the game as one to always come back to. If they could just fix the issues that plague Cyro at times and continue to add new and exciting objectives and "modes" if you will, that would be a nice draw. Pretty much just iron out the little things and then plow forward with new content.
I think a great way to test out how a more difficult zone would play out, popularity wise, would be to just take the group-gates out of Craglorn, scale it up to CP160 and see what people do with it. Just leave it like that for a month or more and see how the community digests the content."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: »Callous2208 wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »Okay... Now, get we get back to talking about how ZOS can keep this game interesting for hardcore and end-game players?
I think they have a tough task on their hands, but it can be done. Content as far as new trials and dungeons is a must. Along with the dlc continuation of story quests and things. QoL features like housing/guild housing may have a positive impact for some. A better overall pvp experience would really cement the game as one to always come back to. If they could just fix the issues that plague Cyro at times and continue to add new and exciting objectives and "modes" if you will, that would be a nice draw. Pretty much just iron out the little things and then plow forward with new content.
I think a great way to test out how a more difficult zone would play out, popularity wise, would be to just take the group-gates out of Craglorn, scale it up to CP160 and see what people do with it. Just leave it like that for a month or more and see how the community digests the content.
They wanted to do something with Craglorn, but I like your idea, especially with the scaling happening with One Tamriel. There is always a way in which players deal with hard content. I have seen no game yet, where the hardest content, even if it seemed to be nearly impossible was not conquered in a rather short while by some specialists. It would be something for them to do, to figure out how.Edited by Lysette on June 30, 2016 9:47PM0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭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.
I'm sorry guys, with the way this got Moderated, I can't let him have the last word. Just can't.
Got one more infographic, spoilered for size and to avoid extra distraction.
According to this graphic, as of Q2, 2016, PC and MMO revenues have accounted for nearly as much money as all console revenues put together and are expected to grow at nearly the same rate. So, any theories that one (of the three) consoles is bringing in enough "competitive hardcore" players to make up a majority of the paying population are severely misguided.
Carry on.
"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?2 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭A month is a bit short though, it would be too crowded to get a real impression how it would turn out in the longer run.0 -
mechsauc3✭✭"We've removed a series of comments that started with insulting language that continued. We've removed all responses related to those posts even though some of them did contain constructive points because it was too difficult to remove the offensive comments from the valid points.
We've had to moderate this discussion more than once; please keep your comments civil and constructive or we will close this thread."
hahaahahhaa0 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »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.
I'm sorry guys, with the way this got Moderated, I can't let him have the last word. Just can't.
Got one more infographic, spoilered for size and to avoid extra distraction.
According to this graphic, as of Q2, 2016, PC and MMO revenues have accounted for nearly as much money as all console revenues put together and are expected to grow at nearly the same rate. So, any theories that one (of the three) consoles is bringing in enough "competitive hardcore" players to make up a majority of the paying population are severely misguided.
Carry on.
again the graph shows ZERO evidence on how many hardcore or casual gamers are in pc computer gaming segment. keep trying. im waiting.0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭A month is a bit short though, it would be too crowded to get a real impression how it would turn out in the longer run.
Or however long is necessary to get a good idea.
Of course, they should mention somewhere that it's an experiment before they do it so people don't get all grumpy because it's too hard."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 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »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.
I'm sorry guys, with the way this got Moderated, I can't let him have the last word. Just can't.
Got one more infographic, spoilered for size and to avoid extra distraction.
According to this graphic, as of Q2, 2016, PC and MMO revenues have accounted for nearly as much money as all console revenues put together and are expected to grow at nearly the same rate. So, any theories that one (of the three) consoles is bringing in enough "competitive hardcore" players to make up a majority of the paying population are severely misguided.
Carry on.
again the graph shows ZERO evidence on how many hardcore or casual gamers are in pc computer gaming segment. keep trying. im waiting.
We're done, friend.
Extrapolation, as a concept, is demonstrably beyond you and that's the only thing we have to use to arrive at conclusions."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: »A month is a bit short though, it would be too crowded to get a real impression how it would turn out in the longer run.
Or however long is necessary to get a good idea.
Of course, they should mention somewhere that it's an experiment before they do it so people don't get all grumpy because it's too hard.
Yeah but the problem is, that it would not be too hard, if all flood into craglorn and kill all on sight - most mob would be dead and it would not be challenging.0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »A month is a bit short though, it would be too crowded to get a real impression how it would turn out in the longer run.
Or however long is necessary to get a good idea.
Of course, they should mention somewhere that it's an experiment before they do it so people don't get all grumpy because it's too hard.
Yeah but the problem is, that it would not be too hard, if all flood into craglorn and kill all on sight - most mob would be dead and it would not be challenging.
That's why you leave it for a while. A lot folks have already completed it as is.
I've never touched it, personally. I'd love a shot at going at it solo, if I didn't already over-level it and if there weren't group-gates in the way."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 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »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.
I'm sorry guys, with the way this got Moderated, I can't let him have the last word. Just can't.
Got one more infographic, spoilered for size and to avoid extra distraction.
According to this graphic, as of Q2, 2016, PC and MMO revenues have accounted for nearly as much money as all console revenues put together and are expected to grow at nearly the same rate. So, any theories that one (of the three) consoles is bringing in enough "competitive hardcore" players to make up a majority of the paying population are severely misguided.
Carry on.
again the graph shows ZERO evidence on how many hardcore or casual gamers are in pc computer gaming segment. keep trying. im waiting.
We're done, friend.
Extrapolation, as a concept, is demonstrably beyond you and that's the only thing we have to use to arrive at conclusions.
im still waiting for you to dissect the pc gaming industry and see who has the higher market share. you haven't. not even close. when are you going to do so. that last graph show no correlation what so ever1 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭yes, but if you remove the group gate that does not make it a solo-content - it would be open for all, who all at the same time kill mobs - especially when it is new, a lot would just flood into Craglorn and try it out - and that would be like massive groups would fight there in it's effects - you would not get that solo-experience in the initial test phase.
Basically the issue I experience in a public dungeon at prime time - most of the mob is dead and there is nothing left for me to fight or just a few enemies.Edited by Lysette on June 30, 2016 10:02PM0 -
Ffastyl✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »A month is a bit short though, it would be too crowded to get a real impression how it would turn out in the longer run.
Or however long is necessary to get a good idea.
Of course, they should mention somewhere that it's an experiment before they do it so people don't get all grumpy because it's too hard.
Yeah but the problem is, that it would not be too hard, if all flood into craglorn and kill all on sight - most mob would be dead and it would not be challenging.
Just like when Craglorn was popular - groups of 20 or more players would ravage the lands, moving from one boss to the next mechanically."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 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »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.
I'm sorry guys, with the way this got Moderated, I can't let him have the last word. Just can't.
Got one more infographic, spoilered for size and to avoid extra distraction.
According to this graphic, as of Q2, 2016, PC and MMO revenues have accounted for nearly as much money as all console revenues put together and are expected to grow at nearly the same rate. So, any theories that one (of the three) consoles is bringing in enough "competitive hardcore" players to make up a majority of the paying population are severely misguided.
Carry on.
again the graph shows ZERO evidence on how many hardcore or casual gamers are in pc computer gaming segment. keep trying. im waiting.
We're done, friend.
Extrapolation, as a concept, is demonstrably beyond you and that's the only thing we have to use to arrive at conclusions.
im still waiting for you to dissect the pc gaming industry and see who has the higher market share. you haven't. not even close. when are you going to do so. that last graph show no correlation what so ever
And I'm not going to.
It's over.
You know what they say:
There are two types of people in the world; those who can extrapolate from incomplete data."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?4 -
KrishakPanettier✭✭✭Averya_Teira wrote: »ESO is not a game for Hardcore players.
End of story.
There absolutely are hard core players in ESO PC and Console. This, you do not know what you are talking about.Krishak Kringle aka KrishakPanettier, Templar (PSN:KrishakPanettier)
-- PS4 NA --
PVP, PVE, and Trader Guild LeaderGuild:
- Rent-A-Zerg Mercs AD (one-time large AD PVP Guild - now PVP, PVE, dungeons, trials, and crafting)
- Shadow Exiles AD (merged into RAZ AD)
- Recruiting all levels, for help all in-game content. Not just PVP anymore. Not just AD.
Online:
- Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/RAZ.AD
- Facebook: www.facebook.com/ShadowExiles
- Twitter: @ShadowExiles
- www: www.shadowexiles.com0 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »A month is a bit short though, it would be too crowded to get a real impression how it would turn out in the longer run.
Or however long is necessary to get a good idea.
Of course, they should mention somewhere that it's an experiment before they do it so people don't get all grumpy because it's too hard.
Yeah but the problem is, that it would not be too hard, if all flood into craglorn and kill all on sight - most mob would be dead and it would not be challenging.
Just like when Craglorn was popular - groups of 20 or more players would ravage the lands, moving from one boss to the next mechanically.
that is exactly my point with it.0 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »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.
I'm sorry guys, with the way this got Moderated, I can't let him have the last word. Just can't.
Got one more infographic, spoilered for size and to avoid extra distraction.
According to this graphic, as of Q2, 2016, PC and MMO revenues have accounted for nearly as much money as all console revenues put together and are expected to grow at nearly the same rate. So, any theories that one (of the three) consoles is bringing in enough "competitive hardcore" players to make up a majority of the paying population are severely misguided.
Carry on.
again the graph shows ZERO evidence on how many hardcore or casual gamers are in pc computer gaming segment. keep trying. im waiting.
We're done, friend.
Extrapolation, as a concept, is demonstrably beyond you and that's the only thing we have to use to arrive at conclusions.
im still waiting for you to dissect the pc gaming industry and see who has the higher market share. you haven't. not even close. when are you going to do so. that last graph show no correlation what so ever
And I'm not going to.
It's over.
You know what they say:
There are two types of people in the world; those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
your whole argument based the pc gaming segment on your own assumptions. and you based your conclusion off of that. Moreover, you have provided facts that do not support your conclusion at all. Thats called academic dishonesty.0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭yes, but if you remove the group gate that does not make it a solo-content - it would be open for all, who all at the same time kill mobs - especially when it is new, a lot would just flood into Craglorn and try it out - and that would be like massive groups would fight there in it's effects - you would not get that solo-experience in the initial test phase.
Basically the issue I experience in a public dungeon at prime time - most of the mob is dead and there is nothing left for me to fight or just a few enemies.
Like I said, I've only gone to Craglorn once... to turn in a crafting Writ.
I'm not familiar with the content or how to tackle it, or even how to access it all.
It was just a thought."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✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I think that ZOS has something in mind with it already, they said, they will change it - just with no ETA - so maybe let's see with what they come up with. I don't know Craglorn, just teleported there once to meet a friend, otherwise I can just imagine how it is - but this came to mind with it - and like Ffastly said, it was that way, when it was popular.0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭I think that ZOS has something in mind with it already, they said, they will change it - just with no ETA - so maybe let's see with what they come up with. I don't know Craglorn, just teleported there once to meet a friend, otherwise I can just imagine how it is - but this came to mind with it - and like Ffastly said, it was that way, when it was popular.
Yeah, I remember seeing something where they said they were re-visiting Craglorn.
I hope it's not just a boring old scale-up."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✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I said I am out of here - meaning the conversation with you - because you are not a reasonable person and cannot follow a thought of another person. It was several times by several people shown to you, that you are wrong, but you are unable or unwilling to even think about it. So it is pointless to talk with you - well, you are not even reading who is posting to you often.
I am still discussing with everyone else, but no longer with you.1 -
Gothren✭✭✭✭✭
I said I am out of here - meaning the conversation with you - because you are not a reasonable person and cannot follow a thought of another person. It was several times by several people shown to you, that you are wrong, but you are unable or unwilling to even think about it. So it is pointless to talk with you - well, you are not even reading who is posting to you often.
I am still discussing with everyone else, but no longer with you.
no what you did was provide nothing. then relied on someone else to formulate an argument that you could not and did not want to do. then you claimed to be a scientist which you are not.0