Own 10 Or More Games On Steam? You Are Too Core For Many Developers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

* Small-time freemium developer says, "It's insulting to marginalize your audience by splitting them into a dichotomy. It hurts the medium."

-- Starts off his speech by spitting his audience into two groups and insulting one of those groups.

* Small-time freemium developer says, "Core gamers don't matter because they're 'novelty seekers'."

-- Developer is apparently unaware that his entire company's revenue stream is likely almost entirely reliant on novelty seeking "Whales".

Is this guy for real? The lack of self-awareness is staggering. He can't possibly be this dumb.

It takes a special kind of stupid to be this blatantly hypocritical. Same goes for those who blame their lack of creativity and originality on the audience. "I can't think of any new ideas! AND IT'S YOUR FAULT!"

What was the actual point of this panel, anyway? It seemed like more of a self-congratulatory wank-fest for small-time indie devs than it did anything constructive.

In concluding the session, Cook reiterated that the debate over terminology and dividing the player base will do more harm than good.

This was the only salient point the man made. Shame he didn't start off with it and then leave it at that.

Uh-oh! I think Cook is going to get some hate from the Internet. Recent history shows that lots of gamers really hate when they are told that they don't matter in the gaming industry.

At what point did GDC become such a shitshow? I mean, I'm sure there's still some decent stuff going on there, but in previous years all I hear from it are mobile developers either 1) trying to denigrate PC/console gamers and 2) talking about the best way to milk "whales" and psychologically screw with people to get their micro-monies.

I mean, was it always this bad or is there something I'm missing?

While I guess it makes sense that the "core" majority is now mobile gaming, it's also where nothing is happening at all in games and anything that ever gets made is just cribbed from indies and converted into a digestible, mass appeal death-by-a-thousand-microtransactions affair. The high point of that man's career is living a lie. The belief that the best way for people to experience games is to figure out how to get more money from the customer, and to attempt to occupy all of that customer's time by spamming games at them or creating games whose express purpose is to waste that person's time without giving them anything except more reasons to waste their time/money IS NOT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A GAME. Even the barest, flimsiest excuses of games at least give the player what they want at the end. Yall stopped doing that when you figured out that it was more profitable to keep them hanging ("blue balls" if you will) just enough so that they don't quit out of frustration, but not enough to actually let them finish playing. The opinions of people who make a lot of money are NOT AUTOMATICALLY VALID BECAUSE OF MONEY. We do not have to pay any respect to anybody that phones in effort for profit. Are people who play mobile games any less of a person? No. Should we scold them for wasting their money on these games? It's their money, and their choice. But those people deserve more than what they're being given. Smokescreening behind "nobody agrees on what a game is" and "people who play mobile games spend a lot of money and are a very large group of people" still doesn't excuse the pathetic piles of shit that have been made in the name of gaming. I wouldn't even place them on equal footing with Sonic 2006. That would actually be an insult to Sega!

Why would people that play games matter to people who don't make games?

This guy is has no idea what he's talking about. Who gave him a speaking position, and how long before they're replaced with an adorable cigar smoking monkey that'll clearly be doing a better job?

10 games? That's cute. I own 533 games on Steam. Seriously though who the heck is this guy and why should I care about what he spews from his mouth?

Wow, so they don't want to make games for gamers anymore. Wonder how long the industry will last with this kind of attitude. Will probably end up with 400 versions of the same shitty zookeeper clone. Hope this is stays the opinion of just one arsehat and not the entire industry.

I would call it the believer argument.
- some guy: "Look! We're 2 billions. We can't be wrong!!!"
- me: "Except those 2 billions are more busy killing each others than anything else."

Same thing here.
Just because your theorical market is 2 billions doesn't mean it's homogene and steady like a lower core/dedicated buyers market.
Financialy speaking, he may be right. That's how moneymakers see the videogames industry: to make money, shovelware everyone on mobile and wait for the dumbs to act dumb.
Yet, any industry needs a constant cash flow, which can only be obtained from core/regular consumers.

Okay, so i've a friend that doesn't view himself as a gamer and really only very occasionally plays a game of Civ5 or something. Also not more frequently than maybe a game per month or even less.
And even he owns more than 10 games on Steam but according to him hasn't bought one in years.

So even a customer that hasn't been a customer to anyone in a bunch of years is to "hardcore" for mobiledevs, so how do they aim to make money in the end if nobody is supposed to buy their product?

Oh you're a developer? I've never heard of you before. *ANALYSIS INVALIDATED*

Seriously though, dude barely qualifies as a game developer, much like the pre-crash Atari game dev's were... I never spend $$ on freemiums or mobile crap anyway so this blip on my radar turned out to be a fly on the screen.

Steam, the last bastion for intelligent gamers, and by that i just mean people who enjoy the traditional gaming experience instead of being tricked by new age psychological money sucking that thoroughly infests mobile games, and has bled over into AAA games also, Destiny, moba's, unfinished early releases, i'm looking at you.

i sort of get the novelty seeking side.. how many of us for example own so many games on steam we have never played half of them and probably never will? it comes across as we constantly jump games rather than spending huge amount of times with a couple of purchases so why would developers put time and effort catering to that group if you are only going to spend an hour or so at most.

that said its very badly worded and insulting to say the least and has probably burned alot of bridges with gamers.

sure personally ive got 700+ games on steam but equally ive got hundreds of hours in some games that catch my attention like fallout 4.

pookie101:
i sort of get the novelty seeking side.. how many of us for example own so many games on steam we have never played half of them and probably never will? it comes across as we constantly jump games rather than spending huge amount of times with a couple of purchases so why would developers put time and effort catering to that group if you are only going to spend an hour or so at most.

Because we still buy the things and, unlike mobile games, most of our "core" games aren't reliant on microtransactions to make their money. His assumption is that core gamers are novelty seekers, but that would mean that experimental indie games hold the lion share of the market, which I believe isn't true. Core gamers are usually early adopters and enthusiasts, that's why they overspend on games.

Which is kind of the problem with his argument, in that it discounts a lot of things. The PC market isn't the same as the mobile market, even if he doesn't want to admit it. I have 290 games on Steam and I've played maybe 50 of them. It's not because I don't intend to play the rest (even if I eventually never find the time), it's because Steam and GOG and the other distributors created a market that relies on sales, which to my knowledge neither exists nor would work on mobile.

Then, what's the drop-off rate of the mobile player base? How many of his "players" buy games or spend on microtransactions and how many just stick with grinding the free versions? What's the bounce rate for these players, i.e. how often and for how long do they play? I don't really do mobile gaming myself, but I know for a fact "core" gamers are the ones that spend a lot of money on freemium mobile games, for the same reason MMO players spend just as much on the PC. He mentions a billion players, presumably in the mobile market, but how many of them actually spend money and how much?

I'd like to see some numbers that back up his claims; regardless, I don't entirely reject his statements, it's not a bad thing for different developers on different platforms to muse and experiment with different approaches to game development. I do think, however, that he's conflating different markets, that the division exists (even if some of the audience overlaps with core gaming) and he speaks not a word of casual PC/console gamers (the COD and FIFA and GTA crowd, who also probably play mobile games).

Guys, guys.

Arthouse films are dead because cinemaphiles are a really small margin of the market. There is no point in dividing the populus, so let's only develop popcorn blockbusters since the niche doesn't matter.

There is no point in making sport and custom cars, since gearheads are a really small percent of the market. There is no point in dividing the populus, so let's all drive soviet VASes.

The dude should really take a few economic classes. Indeed, core audience is small, yet are way more willing to spend large ammounts of time and money in to goods. Two largest Activision properities at the moment are Call of Duty and Candy Crush. You can either charge a 1000 people a 100$ or charge 10,000 customers 10%.

There are plenty of businesses that can sustain themselves on niche markets. Kind of like Yahtzee put it, Nintendo survived for so long by appealing to a loyal demographic, they did have a spike in profits when they decided to betray them to create a more mainstream expirience with the Wii, however the casuals moved on to mobile, which ended up costing the big N quite a lot sales.

Woohoo! I'm not one of the cool kids! I was scared for a second there, seeing how pop culture was hijacking all of my dorky hobbies, one at a time.

I agree that the discussion about core vs casual gamers is stupid, detrimental, and doomed to never reach a consensus.

I disagree that people that have more than 10 games in their steam library are novelty seekers and thus, don't matter to his point. Novelty is what supports mobile games. If I wasn't interested in trying new things, there is no way I would even glance at titles like "Bushido bear", "Panda poet" and "Alpha bear"...

You have to remember everyone that this is the GDC. This is the place where failed "artistic developers" go to screech at more successful developers about how they're failing the industry all to the wailing of other failures. The GDC is not a place for developers to get ideas, it's a "safe space" to yell about how they're the only important things in the world.

Something like this is not only common, it's expected.

Oh boy. I remember when indie devs started feeling too important for their own good, dismissing everyone else but themselves in the industry. Then Phil Fish cancelled another project. Good times.

Sure I may own to many games to be important to you Spry Fox, but this is the first time me and my "core" friends have ever heard of you and never have heard of any of your products so you matter so little to most of us, we don't even know you exist.

There ARE hardcore and casual gamers. Their hardcoreness or casualness are not defined by Steam library volume, but by positioning of gaming as form of entertainment in priority list. It should be quite obvious and barely affects anything.

Sounds as if he doesn't like making games. I'm not sure why he would like whale hunting if he doesn't get any enjoyment out of creating something that is good.. but I guess it might have something to do with having to put much less effort into the work that leads to the paycheck.

LOL and I thought GDC the last couple years was bad... they might as well just cancel the whole thing if this is the mindset the developers going to it have.

The good news is, the developers I am too "core" for don't make anything that interests me anyway.

If core gamers are stifling the kind of "creativity" that most of the mobile market runs off of, good on them. If lots of people enjoy the kinds of games King and their ilk make, so be it, but I am quite happy about my irrelevance to that kind of publisher.

Core gamers don't have to be your audience. Core gamers are over.

From San Francisco? You don't say...

I know I'm parroting the rest of the forum here by voicing my distaste, but what really gets on my nerves about this story is how it seems to be an indicator of a growing trend of mobile and indie developers with a design philosophy of ceiling-less microtransaction systems targeting less savvy gamers. That this is happening at all is annoying, that it's being preached as the future of gaming is blood-boiling. I want to see each and every one of these people buried alive by the competition, and if it's by other mobile and indie developers pushing the new digital skinner box crack, all the better.

*That* is the difference between the "core" and the "casual". We'll still be here, who will remember you?

Nice to see the 'gamers are dead' and 'gamers don't have to be your audience' mentality is still alive and well in the hipster capital of the world. I almost didn't comment just because I feel like giving this guy any attention means he wins, but you'd think someone would have learned after gamergate.

Doesn't seem like much changed if self-entitled pricks like him sit there and insult his audience.

"You're novelty seekers"

"You're stifling creativity"

Make up your mind. If core gamers continually ask for something new while casual gamers can ask for the same game over and over again, how can you say core gamers are the ones stifling creativity?

I hate to be this guy, actually no I don't, but is there anymore context to these quotes?

I honestly think there has to be, because I don't think anyone could possibly say that without more context around it. There are dozens of ways this could actually be worked into a logical point and no one with half a brain would give someone such a brutal set of quotes without at least something else to say.

If there is more context to this can we please get the whole story and not just the few bits to make a random developer seem like he is an ass. If there isn't more context then please proceed insulting an ridiculing him, because he earned it.

Who? From which studio again?

So a mobile game developer does not care about gamers of the stationary platforms... call me surprised.
Kind of funny considering that a lot of those F2P games live off whales. Those whales are anything but casual...

I think their point is this:
These days, you don't make the real money by selling games.
You make it by selling DLC, season passes and microtransactions.
The people who switch from one game to another often will less likely spend extra money on 1 game so, in the eyes of these publishers/developers, they're not important.
This is especially true for F2P games, where the people who switch games often won't spend anything on them.
The people who stick to a selected few games and who spend extra money on the extra useless stuff are the ones that these companies are after.

It makes sense, honestly.

Call me stupid if you want, but doesn't this logic scream that indeed piracy isn't a issue for the Videogame industry?
If their target is the casuals, who I guess they don't know the concept of piracy, I think this make sense in reality.

I think this is a classic "Quantity Versus Quality" dilemma.
That why the most well-known videogame series, which have lot of fans as well, doesn't matter if they are good for their standards: They know they will get their game no matter what.

So in other words, yes, I can see clearly why they think like that.....I think...

Just checked and apparently his studio mainly developed freemium games.

Ah I see, you don't like players that own ten or more games because they've got better things to do that helps them avoiding falling into the trap your microtransactions laid.

Fuck you cunt.

Vanilla ISIS:
I think their point is this:
These days, you don't make the real money by selling games.
You make it by selling DLC, season passes and microtransactions.
The people who switch from one game to another often will less likely spend extra money on 1 game so, in the eyes of these publishers/developers, they're not important.
This is especially true for F2P games, where the people who switch games often won't spend anything on them.
The people who stick to a selected few games and who spend extra money on the extra useless stuff are the ones that these companies are after.

It makes sense, honestly.

Also this is a very good point as well.
Casual gamers will just stick with one game which in their eyes is "good" to have fun.
Also I know that many people can throw easily few euros to get some game items/powers/etc for putting many hours in the game.
A friend of mine play daily an MMO [I don't remember its name], said openly he don't care. He just want his daily fix and throw some money to make his life easier.
Very simple cause he have also a job like me and some euros are NOTHING in comparison what we pay in our daily lifes.

CaitSeith:
Uh-oh! I think Cook is going to get some hate from the Internet. Recent history shows that lots of gamers really hate when they are told that they don't matter in the gaming industry.

I hate that the Escapist makes a click bait article to give this asshole credence.

I would like it better if the article was written from the perspective of the core audience. He is a lottery winner laughing at people doing hard work for not playing the lottery, laugh back at him for being a moron, don't entertain his idiocy.

Vanilla ISIS:
These days, you don't make the real money by selling games.

Some do, some don't.

You make it by selling DLC, season passes and microtransactions.

So they keep telling us and a large number of people keep telling them, screw you and sell me a complete game. Which a lot of developers keep doing, cause in the end we have money and they want it.

The people who switch from one game to another often will less likely spend extra money on 1 game so, in the eyes of these publishers/developers, they're not important.

When they say we're not important and we should stop talking about core games what they are really saying is that we should stop spending money on core games ... they can not abide a separate market existing, they want to drag it all down into their abyss.

So someone I don't know who develops games I don't play told me my choices as a consumer and hobbyist aren't important to the medium as a whole.

In other news, folks, water's wet and the sky is blue.

Anything else you'd like to contribute, mister Cook? Any other awe-inspiring chunks you'd like to lob in my general direction? Because I'll probably disregard them and keep playing whatever the Hell it is I like.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.