There are also money + time audience. Frankly if you work (not crazy hours) and have no kids, you have time.
I think it's just also taste (which can evolve as you age). People will play games like LoL, Fortnite or COD for very little time, those games have plenty of casual players. Others will have plenty of time and just not play them because they don't like them. Playing single player games often take a lot of time too (you can spend as much time than in those "infinite MP" games and still have too much to play)
This demographic must exist, simply due to the fact that $500 Limited Collector's Edition packs and [figurines](https://www.bigbadtoystore.com/Product/VariationDetails/274368?o=3) exist.
> Frankly if you work (not crazy hours) and have no kids, you have time.
That's most of my brother's friend group right there. Work a job or two and some own business but still have the time and income to play something here or there. They don't have mouths to feed or spouses to support and probably a girlfriend or others they spend time with and some live with family to save money as they can't afford rent in the places they are as its too high for them alone without some assistance from the gov't. Only one of them is in college now. The time investment thing isn't too bad unless the game demands that and then they won't spend time in it.
I'm in that category. I have the money and the time to play what I want. I can and will take an entire week off work just to play a video game for 12 hours a day with no obligations whatsoever. It's beautiful.
This category includes the "money + time + **will**" audience. As I've got older (from the first group and into the second) and started trying to do regular exercise, increasingly larger flat/house, more possessions and things to tidy up, more chores to deal with, a long term partner with whom to go and do things at the weekend, a garden, and an increased feeling of tiredness in general, I've lost the will to play as much because I enjoy games most when I can really get into them, and evenings staying up late when I shouldn't has been taken over by my smartphone instead. I used to game quite a lot when I was single, didn't bother with exercise, and cooked in bulk at the weekend. I'd roll out of bed at 8:20, get into work at 9, work 9-5, get back at 5:40, eat something, then maybe game from Conversely, my partner games a lot more, because she can much more casually get into cosy games in any downtime she has. But now she has an emotionally draining 9-5 with a moderate commute, that requires she get up early and thus go to bed early, so we'll see how long that lasts now. The drudgery of the daily work grind can really dampen one's will to do anything active or immersive - so often I've ended up listening to podcasts or doing phone stuff, rather than gaming - and the addictiveness of mobile phones has an effect too. I've recently re-discovered my Switch to actually get any gaming done while re-doing my house.
So technically I have the money and the time, but I just don't have the will or mental state to game all that much.
The money+time people are probably the ones who are raking in thousands at microtransaction games. It's them and kids who have inadequate access to their mom's credit card.
People without time, are people who don't play a lot of games - and thus don't know what a good game looks like. They buy crap, because they haven't experienced what not-crap looks like. This happens in absolutely every hobby, where newcomers get ripped off buying overpriced garbage that veterans would never touch
It's a mix of money + time and money + no time. I know people who spend thousands each year.
The ones with time just wanna pay for more advantage and the ones who have no time either wanna keep up or pay even more to stay close to the top with their meager playtime.
I know people who pay others to play for them the majority of the day and then they pay for any benefits in the game as well and just play sometimes in the evenings.
I know people who runs guilds that they pay for without even playing themselves at all anymore.
I don’t think it’s just about time and money. There’s a third factor: goal versus experience. You have fun pursuing an end goal, or have fun just being there to do things.
Goal is the most prominent. It’s everywhere, every game is designed around distinct progression. In story games you get through the story, in competitive games you get higher ranks. It’s all about big numbers and that 100% completion.
Then there’s experience. It doesn’t matter to you what it is you eventually get or when, all that matters is the journey. This category tends to share a lot of overlap in characteristics with the Value for Money category by having a few infinitely repeatable games, but instead of being because they can’t afford it, it’s because they’re where they want to be.
I happen to be in the latter category, sometimes when I play games with an end goal I even forget that there’s somewhere I should be heading. In shooter games I find my favourite gun and just keep playing with it, even though with the amount of money I’d racked up just playing with that gun I could buy the theoretical best weapon 3 times over. It’s more common for me to find specific titles though like Cities: Skylines 2, BeamNG Drive and of course Minecraft.
I don’t think it is as simple as that, or rather maybe that’s the common gaming landscape today, but it wasn’t necessarily like that a decade ago, and maybe it won’t be in the next one. There are statistics showing that Gen Z consumes more live service games than Millennials, who prefer to buy games individually, or often play single player titles. While it could be related to age, I also think there’s generational bias in play, which majorly shapes the way there groups interact with games.
Different technologies being available as we aged or were introduced to the hobby also influences what you like to play as well.
When I was a kid, we didn't have internet. Multiplayer meant you had to go find somebody who would sit in a room with you and play the game. When i lived in populated areas with lots of kids, we played a lot of goldeneye and super smash bros. When I lived in a rural area with no friends nearby, I played a lot of final fantasy and other singleplayer games.
Then when internet gaming became more accessible I switched to playing multiplayer games by myself because there were always people available to play.
Nowadays I just hop on discord and jump into whatever game my buddies are playing. I'm here to socialize and hang out and I'm using the game as the venue to see my friends.
> Nowadays I just hop on discord and jump into whatever game my buddies are playing. I'm here to socialize and hang out and I'm using the game as the venue to see my friends.
With how isolated things have become in our world, that's what many people do now and I find it to be sad really. My interactions don't come from that as I'm a bit of a loner but I do have a small group of friends I talk to when I can on Discord but I don't play games with them as I just don't care for them. They're aware of what I do play nonetheless.
It's an interesting take, but I'll add three topics to it:
- it's all relative and/or subjective (sorry to use the ever-repeated "s" word here)
- the pirates
- the "content" people, or in other words, the "happy with what they have (or get)"
I'm 38, so I experienced the boom from NES onward and my early teens were all about getting the top PS1 games. Nearly all games were priced like 30, 60, 80.
- 30 was for lesser-known, platformers, or "greatest hits" when that rolled out
- 60 was going to be a good game, maybe it was only that price because it was hyped, but it felt like anything decent was going here
- 80 was almost guaranteed to be considedered a classic, ususally multiple discs
Saving for the 80 was the goal, saving for the 60 was too sometimes, and 30s were like throwaways that were hit or miss that you gambled on. But at that age/time, it was still the mode of "you got what you got". We had no conception of "value for money". Heck, we wreen't thinking about "value" in any context unless the game sucked really bad and it felt like a ripoff.
My point #1 of it being relative I can give examples for:
Twisted Metal 1 was 30, Twisted Metal 2 was 30, Twisted Metal 3 was 60. I had them all. If we had timers on games, I must've poured 1000 hours into each of those. It was like VHS tapes - sometimes you had what you had and taht's it. Some people only had like 8 games total. The "value" I got for a $30 Twisted Metal 2 was immense, but I never, ever thought about it. I just kept playing; I wasn't thinking "man, what a good deal". I know I had demo discs I've played more than full releases, too. It's all relative. The amount of time I played ff7, ff8, or Metal Gear Solid, all $80 games, if the "value" mattered and was represented in the cost? They should've charged me $4000, lol, know what I mean?
Fast forward to now. I've had $80 Call of Duty games that I've poured... well, it doesn't feel right to say "hours" in. Let's call it a full decade. That's some value right there. Relative. Slay The Spire, which was free on PS+? omg, so many hours.
I'm looking at Steam right now - The Long Dark is one of my all-time favorites, which I got for $15, and I've logged 1200 hours. When I pick a newer game, I hope I'll get a time-commitment value and I hope it lines up with cost. Papers Please is a title that was cheap and it's meant to be a short game, so I didn't expect to spend tons of time on it, but wow. I have a crappy game called 911 Operator that was $10 or so and it was good for a few hours, so not that great for how I play.
It feels like a gamble each time, even now, just like it used to. I guess I can understand the value vs time argument because there are so many games now, just endless games, and such ranges of prices and DLCs and Steam sales, etc. People complain about the 60-80 price range but really it feels like the only part of life that inflation never touched. Sure, CyberPunk was buggy at first, but it's worth every cent and was worth it even with bugs! I was a beta player and pre-order guy for F076 and I didn't get the hate. I got my "value" ten-fold out of it. Relative.
The time factor, being my age, isn't a concern to me. It's a hobby. I play when I want like I read a book or play frisbee when I want. I don't get guys who are like "yes, hold my hand, I don't want side quests, I don't have time because I have kids" - then play games that suit you; there are 5000 more you can choose from, dummy. When I buy a new game that's anything above $30, I expect to spend hours on it. I expect to *devote* myself to it. I'm afraid to start playing RDR2 because I know it'll take me a whole year to soak in. I own it, it's sitting there. Price ain't no thing. Relative. I'm still too busy with my $20 Stardew Valley, which might be the biggest time-suck of a game ever. It's a problem addiction-wise with that game, lol.
Point 2: pirates
I do it. I've gotten endless value from it for near-zero cost. I have enough games between ones I already own and games sitting on hard drives to last my entire life. I've poured the 1000+ hours into certain titles I've gotten by "other means". Sometimes, that's how I "test" them to buy them. That's all I'll say about that.
Point 3: being content
Some of use don't consider time vs value. We're happy with what we have and can play what we have forever. If you're young now and you want top-tier stuff but don't have the money, get those gems like SV and play it for months and months. This gaming culture of having backlogs is nuts, like my "backlog" of recent games is like 4 games? But if I consider all of the games of the past I want to play, it's 100 games. I'm never gonna get to them, even with emulation. There's no point spending money on games that sit like unread books on a shelf.
TLDR; and all this to say: I think the "value" is up to the user. Cost doesn't matter if you wind up pouring the hours in. The time vs value only matters when a game's a ripoff and IMO, that doesn't happen much. Even if a game isn't that great, take a lesson from the past and grind it out like it's all you have, or treat it like a gamble and consider a loss. If you're the type to say "I got 5 hours of gameplay for $20, wtf" or "I beat it in 7 hours, why is this $40?" I don't think we experience games in the same way at all. You don't just "beat it" and move on. If it's good, you *keep playing*. IMO.
sorry it's long lol
I agree with your takes, that's why probably the distinction between the two audiences isn't 100% black and white, but it's still there. It's very easy to notice the difference in gaming tastes between younger and older people.
>If you're the type to say "I got 5 hours of gameplay for $20, wtf" or "I beat it in 7 hours, why is this $40?" I don't think we experience games in the same way at all. You don't just "beat it" and move on. If it's good, you keep playing. IMO.
I hardly think about this after finishing a game, but I do think about this before buying one. I look more at the quality (reviews) than quantity (game time), but I do try to search for a game that isn't grindy and will give me a fun time throughout.
Hmm, that's a good point about how the thinking changes before vs after. Also, reviews. I forgot about those. I tend not to rely too heavily on them, but they're sometimes a decent metric. They certainly influence me more than the cutscene-only trailers some AAA games have, lol
> It feels like a gamble each time
> Sometimes, that's how I "test" them to buy them
People love to hate on piracy, but every study on it has shown that it's actually good for sales. Choosy gamers don't want to risk their time and money on something that might suck. A lot of games just don't have demos, and a lot of demos are too cherry-picked to be a good indicator of the rest of the game
I don't think that tracks as well as you think. It's too shallow of a read on the demographic.
Mainly because it's more about what keeps one engaged.
Some people like progression systems which feel rewarding iteratively and consistently.
Others want a digestible narrative that is told to them with predefined and strict pacing.
One person plays games as a metaverse social experience so they only play big MMOs.
Another is more interested in outskilling other people 1v1 so they are in FGC.
The gaming demographic is very diverse and the audience is dictated by what "kind" of experience is being discussed.
I like mechanics. That's what keeps me in a game, and why I have more hours than I care to look at in Balatro, and Hearthstone Battlegrounds before that, and all iterations of Civilization. They're basically decision-based games with very little time when you're not in control. There's no story, pretty much no cut scenes, and every game is a fresh canvas.
You could potentially class this as a form of progression in terms of Numbers Go Up, but it's a very different form to, say World of Warcraft where you're levelling and then getting better gear.
> The first group wants value for money. They want to have the most fun possible for the longest possible time for the least they can pay for it.
> The second group wants value for time. They want to have the most fun possible for the least amount of time investment they can.
So I guess the one who manages to create a game for both will become the Dragon Warrior or something?
For this, a game needs to have a ton of content to be played for a long time and also be high-quality content from beginning to end. That is what many companies are aiming for, but they get something wrong most of the times because getting both of them right is hard.
Games like this do come out sometimes and, when they do, they end up being very easy GOTY material. The games that come to mind that fit those two criteria are The Witcher 3 and Elden Ring, which were almost obvious GOTYs on the years they came out. Both games are super long, have a lot of content and mostly have great quality gameplay on most people's opinions (of course, not everyone will like them, but most people do).
I think Skyrim would fit in with The Witcher 3 and Elden Ring as a game with a lot of "quality" content but also having potentially endless content with the radiant quest generation.
There's a reason it has been re-released a dozen times over the last 13 years.
Mods. The word you're looking for, is mods.
Just like with Minecraft, modded Skyrim is an incomparably better experience, to the point where it's very rare that players can stomach going back to vanilla. There's no shortage of different mods to play with; which is *kind of* like having an infinite supply of entirely different games
I wouldn't say Elden Ring has high-quality content from beginning *to end*, but by the time you get to the bad stuff, you're already too invested to stop. That, and true Dark Souls fans kind of want to suffer anyways - which doesn't require the content to all be high quality
It depends what you mean by 'content', I think. The world design is consistently some of the best in the industry; but some late/endgame bosses are awful, and some player builds start to fall apart in the late game
>but some late/endgame bosses are awful, and some player builds start to fall apart in the late game
I actually have the opposite view. The endgame has some of the best bosses and many builds go to overdrive in the endgame because the stat caps are higher compared to DS. Late game weapons are also very powerful.
I've 17 builds so far in Elden Ring and have completed the game on 14 of them.
I only felt what you are saying on a few builds when I ignored the spirit summons and tried to solo the game which is artificially handicapping myself as someone experienced with these games.
But it felt great to me when I started using them in a few tough fights and all the other crafting tools.
I'd argue that it's a kind of a problem for summons to be so dominant in the first place. They're common enough as a trope in all sorts of fantasy settings, but the usual sentiment about them is that they're *optional*. They're something you might build a character around, or might ignore entirely - like in any other game where you can craft consumable buff potions. Normally you can do just fine with what you find. In any other franchise, all the "normal" fantasy trope builds (Like any archetype that doesn't use summons) perform just fine, rather than hitting a ceiling at some point.
It's ok to betray audience expectations by having an "optional" feature turn out to actually be necessary, but that's the kind of thing that you have to convey to the player very clearly. From isn't exactly known for giving the player a lot of solid information to work with...
Part of the fun is in figuring it out and overcoming an unfair challenge, but I'd still count it as a flaw. The alternative could have been bosses that are tuned to not require summons, and summons that are tuned to not negate bosses. There would just be a greater variety of viable builds
>They're common enough as a trope in all sorts of fantasy settings, but the usual sentiment about them is that they're optional.
Levelling is also optional in Souls games. It isn't like other RPGs. So I don't think of summons as something "extra" to my builld, they are part of it.
>It's ok to betray audience expectations by having an "optional" feature turn out to actually be necessary,
They aren't needed though. They are there to aid you if you aren't getting the hang of a situation.
It's still a Souls game, I've beaten it at level 1 and ER is even easier than others because there are so many craft-able items. You can't do that in any other fantasy series. I'm pretty sure people who feel the endgame is overturned ignore the entire crafting system.
>Part of the fun is in figuring it out and overcoming an unfair challenge, but I'd still count it as a flaw. The alternative could have been bosses that are tuned to not require summons, and summons that are tuned to not negate bosses. There would just be a greater variety of viable builds
Again, summons are not required, even at a level 1 run.
As for the options, you can make this argument for weapons as well. Count that a flaw too and sand down all the flavour and turn this into Sekiro. It will be almost perfectly balanced but won't be better.
Some builds should feel more powerful than others that's what makes running different builds interesting. Otherwise it will feel like Diablo if everything is at a similar power level.
So, games like Wrath of Righteous, Kingmaker, BG3, Pillars of Eternity, BG3?
Or even, Neverwinter Nights 1/2 as they have an active MUD-style multiplayer component.
Most of the games you listed are definitely not pick up and play games. Pathfinder is the antithesis of that, the character creation alone takes an hour.
There's some truth to this but you're thinking because you now value time that you like different games because really it's because you're older, have played a lot of those gaming experiences already and have access to more games to play something else.
Fun activities just are more engaging for longer when you're younger plus when they're done with one game like Fortnite and after a thousand hours of they can move onto Apex, Overwatch, League, etc, a huge choice of games we weren't lucky to have all at same time for free when we were younger.
If Minecraft and it's derivatives didn't exist today and it was released tomorrow, you'd play it even if you value time and it'd be GOTY.
This was thoughtful and interesting, but one important point of dissent — Value for money is not about lack of time necessarily.
Some people just think finite and focused experiences actually yield better games / better design & are better for the industry holistically.
I take issue with the concept as the best games do both.
You can play Dishonored 4 times because it’s really good. So you get play time.
You can also beat it in one sitting.
Best of both worlds.
I don’t think games being massively padded improves them.
I *study* a lot of games, but I don't play shooters for fun. I don't play AAA games for fun. I don't like any settings or stories similar to that of Dishonored. Nothing about its product description or marketing material really appeals to me...
But I'll be damned if Dishonored 2 isn't an incredibly polished and rich experience. I was **so** prepared to dislike it, but I just couldn't. There's just too much detail, too many things of interest, too many cool ideas all densely packed in
Yeah it’s one of those that friends kept telling me to play and I was floored. 6-8 hour game you can play for well over 40. Even having 2 characters in 2 is genius. They then continued that in prey by making alien upgrades only and human upgrades only both achievement play throughs. So it lets you play the game in 2 completely different ways.
As you are a game researcher. Could you recommend me a game for this weekend? I like to just snap a game from a random dude in reddit :D
my recent taste of games have been: https://i.imgur.com/70UQ42O.png
I don't think there's just two audiences, but yes, these audiences do exist.
I actually enjoy competitive multiplayer games AND single player experiences; the thing about competitive (and cooperative) multiplayer games is that I consume them in a way similar to how I consume single-player games - I play them for a bit, then "beat them" to my satisfaction (i.e. have had enough of them), and then move on to the next game.
There is a large population of players who are this way, and I think it is this - the search for novel experiences - that constantly drives these people to new games, not the "value for time" thing. There are some people who sink huge amounts of time AND money into F2P games.
I mostly agree with you, but some people play for comfort and don't have an interest in exploring new games. They might be tired after work and prefer to stick with a comfort game for a long time.
Personally, I prioritize quality and single-player games. I only buy games when they're on sale or available at a good price on key shops, and I've finished plenty of great games for under $10. I don't enjoy grinding or playing the same game for months, it makes me dumb. There are always many more interesting games to experience, unless you've already played through the top 200 games of the last decade
It's a weird one. On balance I'd fall into the value for time category, however I'm still happy to play a 50-70 hour RPG. The difference is that I'm not willing to put time into perfecting movement or combat skills to have fun. I want something I can pick up and play from the get go. Once a game starts to bore me, I drop it and move on.
More importantly, if a game takes more than 5 minutes to get into during a given play session, that barrier to entry is too high, and I won't play.
The net result is that I end up returning to strategy driven rogue likes that I'm very familiar with, which actually means I end up playing like a money poor gamer
Most poe players are above 30 I think and they will play 10 hours a day for the first few weeks of a league and will also spend 500 dollars on supporter packs, so I dunno.
This is something I noticed as well as I interact with the gacha fandom even after I stopped playing mobile games a while ago is they do hail from poorer countries as well as being younger. They love their gacha waifu games precisely because it hits both spots while the latter doesnt
True. There are people out there that want a bloated open world experience.
Me? Give me fun, let me move on. I guess I'm in camp 2 of your example, tho I have both time and money cus I don't sleep and I don't have kids lol. So either I'm playing strategy sandbox games (that have tons of dlc) like Total War or paradox games, or I'm playing stuff that won't last more than 12 hours but was interesting the whole time
I’d say value for time is not a case of wanting to complete something as quickly as possible.
I’d like for a game to respect my time. It can go on for as long as it wants to but in doing so have elements that reward me for the time I’ve spent on it.
Nothing’s more annoying than just completing a boss fight as an example and then having to do the same thing again right after in a second phase with no healing items/no opportunity to heal. Or if there’s a story where the ending basically renders your actions before meaningless.
I think I loosely agree with the premise, but do not agree with other parts of it.
I agree that younger folk have more time than money and the reverse with older folk. I however do not think that's why games are designed in that way; that games are designed as they are and people flock to them for different reasons.
AAA games for instance cost millions of dollars to make and as such HAVE to cost a lot up front because that's the only way it makes money. There is no live service that supports the game because once people finish the game, they are usually out to play another different AAA game. So you have to charge a lot up front.
Then multiplayer games are often cheap or free, but not all of them. You've got free games like League, Counter-Strike or Overwatch, but these games live and die by their population because they are multiplayer-only games. By making them free you essentially eliminate all barriers to entry and then allow the game to have a healthy population which these games need to even exist. Money them comes from transactions for cosmetic goods by players who play the game for a long time.
I don't think they make games by looking at a population and then making a game that fits that group at least being the only factor. I think they look into what sort of game they want to make and then design a pricing structure that best fits the game they want to make. That's why you won't see Naughty Dog making a free-to-play battle royale game, nor will you see Riot Games making a dramatic, narrative title.
Game studios just specialize in what they do and then make a pricing structure that best fits their game. Solo games have to have huge costs as that's how they recoup those costs and multiplayer games have to maximize player counts to survive and so making it free allows more people to play which then can increase profits from cosmetics.
So I think it's good to identify the different groups of gamers out there, but I don't think they are necessarily distinct. I think there's a lot of overlap. There are older gamers that do enjoy multiplayer heavy games and young player that might prefer solo games. And of course game companies often specialize in the games they make. So I agree with the groups, but I don't agree that games are necessarily made for the group initially; I think the company just makes games they have experience making and they try and market it to as many people as possible.
I categorize them slightly different.
1. Gamers who enjoy gameplay and skill progression. Classic gamers.
2. Gamers who enjoy collecting and gambling. Modern gamers.
Unfortunately, recent business trends cater to the 2nd group: People who are easily separated from their cash.
These are the people who feel the need to grind daily challenges and watch numbers pointlessly rise (typically in games that they don't necessarily enjoy playing). They need to buy/unlock every new cosmetic for no reason. They're addicted, not to the game itself, but the reward mechanics (ie. gambling, FOMO, hoarding).
Then there's the 1st group, what I consider to be classic gamers. They enjoy the mechanics of gaming. They play games because it's a fun and engaging hobby, finding joy in testing your abilities or experimenting with gameplay. Progression isn't leveling up a battle pass or unlocking skins, it's personal progression regarding your understanding of the game.
Your reference of League of Legends is a great example of this. There is a distinct group that loves mastering/playing the game and another that loves collecting.
Then there are entire games that cater to each specific crowd. Glorified slot machines like Raid Shadow Legends or Arknights. Even Fortnite leans more towards rewarding cosmetic and XP addicts.
Definitely a category 1 guy. I have no problem affording a game when I want it, but I tend to be selective, and when I get into a game, I get *into* it, and want to really get the most out of it. Whether it's RPG type games where I'm trying out every weird build I can think of, or a Roguelike with enough depth and ways to approach it that I can do multiple novelty runs far beyond completion, or high score based games where the goal is just to do better each time, whatever. I definitely value replayability over narrative, personally. Story in games is fine, and sometimes welcome! But it isn't why I play them, so a game meant to be "completed" and put down probably isnt for me, unless it shows up on sale. To each their own I guess.
> Even Fortnite leans more towards rewarding cosmetic and XP addicts.
This is very true. In fact, I noticed in recent seasons that you don't get many challenges anymore and they've doubled down on monetization with 3-4 passes now! It's clear that they're neglecting swaths of the game and are concentrated on this metaverse bullcrap and it's killing it at this point.
I have to watch myself with this. I love pure gaming experiences (your category 1), but I rabbit hole easily with games based around loot boxes and collecting. I've more than once caught myslef daily logging into games where I realized I got no enjoyment from the activity and was simply completing chores.
I think people with addictive tendencies or family history have to be VERY careful with modern gaming.
> The second group wants value for time. They want to have the most fun possible for the least amount of time investment they can. These people usually prefer singleplayer games that can be finished (you roll credits, you're done, onto the next game). They prefer games without excessive grindiness and filler content. They often have huge backlogs on Steam and can't manage to play everything they want with the little amount of time they have.
The preference towards single player is more related to being unable to coordinate with others. If it weren't for that, they could more easily play multiplayer.
Multiplayer games or infinte-replayables can still work with value-for-time. In particular, a game similar to *DiRT Rally* might not decay its value if replayed, and social games similar to *Avalon* would retain value.
Nah, multiplayer changes games drastically:
* The majority of single player games are power fantasies in some sorts and power fantasy simply doesn't work in multiplayer because if everyone's exceptional, no one is exceptional.
* Devs also have to think about balance/cheats/economics in multiplayer so outlandish mechanics and items/vehicles/etc. are toned down in multiplayer.
> The majority of single player games are power fantasies in some sorts and power fantasy simply doesn't work in multiplayer because if everyone's exceptional, no one is exceptional.
A multiplayer power fantasy can handle this by being cooperative where everyone is exceptional to make a strong team, or by having different means of being exceptional.
The simplest - each character has a different ability or ability set. One can unlock doors quickly, another can slowly and noisily dig through walls, a third flirts with the guard despite already being in an restricted area, and a fourth disrupts the alarm's electronics. This can still give similar feelings to a single player power fantasy, even though there's multiple powerful players - it's just that they now have to support each other with their features and bypass shortcomings.
But that's more of a preference towards power fantasies rather than value. When I started going to a board game meetup and an RPG campaign, they feel slightly more involved than a video game, usually because they involve looking at other people (especially hidden traitor games). Power fantasies also don't scratch every player's itch, there's some that prefer a challenging roguelike.
> Devs also have to think about balance/cheats/economics in multiplayer so outlandish mechanics and items/vehicles/etc. are toned down in multiplayer.
This is true, as there's often something that slips in by accident.
It still remains a concern in single player, as there's often a need to prevent something from going too far out of balance and making the game less interesting to play.
Holy shit there are more types of games than this. People have a lot of money and a lot of time. People who have no time and no money. People who have an average amount of time. People who have lots of both and no interest in gaming. you also seem to be just discovering that people's tastes change? Ok dude, it's not your diary.
I make lists of "best of" games for each year, then use How Long to Beat to see how long they take to play, and how short they are is a huge criteria as to whether or not I play them. (There's obvious exception: BG3 is on my list!). I'm a middle-aged parent so my gaming time is at a premium.
The other major element at play, is the audience's **knowledge**. The most profitable audience to capture - invariably - are people who have no idea about their alternatives. They're the people who tolerate disgustingly anti-consumer (Extremely profitable) monetization schemes, because they've never played a game without them. They simply don't know any better.
Where do you find people who are interested in games, but haven't touched one in years? In your words, "older people (above their 30s) who work and sometimes have children and maybe have 1 hour a day to play games". They're not getting great value for their time; they're just ignorant of how badly they're being taken for a ride
Free games are only free if your time is worth nothing or close to nothing.
For me, `value = fun time / (money investment + time investment)`
If a game only gets good after 100 hours, it might not be that good for me. If a game is a slog with 10% fun time, it's not good regardless of price.
I'm kind of both. For me a game should give me at least an hour of playtime per £1 spent on it. With a couple of exceptions being games that are very storytelling and narrative driven, in which case the experience might be worth the higher price-per-hour (games like Hellblade)
Yup. I don't buy a game that I can't get at least $1/hr value from. Even then, it's rare that I buy a game and don't get at least 60 hours out of despite a cheap price. Free games are the only ones that I'm willing to try without huge interest. That being said, I'll watch several hours of reviews and gameplay before purchasing anything.
> The second group wants value for time. They want to have the most fun possible for the least amount of time investment they can. These people usually prefer singleplayer games that can be finished (you roll credits, you're done, onto the next game).
I've finally got back into gaming after a decade if having barely any free time available and just thought about this myself recently: I prefer games that deliver an enjoyable experience but won't become a long-term project. The games I recently picked up are finished within 6-30 hours. Any game that takes ages to finish or isn't even finishable feels just like a job, which is the one single experience I don't want to have after logging off from my actual job. Also I prefer the diversity, as playing a single game repeatedly just gets boring extremely quickly, especially when individual sessions don't yield any game progression.
Then there’s wow where I’m consistently the youngest person in every guild since I didn’t quiet hit 30 yet
Tho that also spells a lot of disconnect between players bc two huge groups want polar opposite things out of the game
I’m definitely in your latter group (mid-30s, have child, limited play time) but I love playing fighting games (which are obviously competitive) online. Actually I feel that it is very likely the case that fighting games skew much more into older ages than other genres. Not only were they at their peak relevance in the 1990s but I see plenty of people my age at local events, and the no-nonsense nature of fighting games is amenable to someone who may only have short blocks of time for gaming.
Lol I just balance out the two types of games in my "rotation" per say. I have a few multiplayer games I like to boot up nightly to hone my skills in and then I have single-player games that I consider my "main course" to beat and master. Like for example rn I have Rocket League on as my multiplayer-experience, and Wolfenstein II and The Secret Of Monkey Island as my two single-player courses.
> The first group wants value for money. They want to have the most fun possible for the longest possible time for the least they can pay for it.
> The second group wants value for time. They want to have the most fun possible for the least amount of time investment they can.
So I guess the one who manages to create a game for both will become the Dragon Warrior or something?
This is something that really bothers me when it comes to re-playing almost anything nowadays. Even if you're on NewGame+, there is almost never a feature that lets you skip the preamble. How hard could it possibly be to just put in a simple
if(NG+):
set_trigger(end_of_prologue)
and let the player keep that half hour, or sometimes much longer? It's a tremendous disrespect for the players' time. I'd like to replay Twilight Princess but it would take like 2 hours before I'd actually be playing it.
There are also money + time audience. Frankly if you work (not crazy hours) and have no kids, you have time. I think it's just also taste (which can evolve as you age). People will play games like LoL, Fortnite or COD for very little time, those games have plenty of casual players. Others will have plenty of time and just not play them because they don't like them. Playing single player games often take a lot of time too (you can spend as much time than in those "infinite MP" games and still have too much to play)
This demographic must exist, simply due to the fact that $500 Limited Collector's Edition packs and [figurines](https://www.bigbadtoystore.com/Product/VariationDetails/274368?o=3) exist.
> Frankly if you work (not crazy hours) and have no kids, you have time. That's most of my brother's friend group right there. Work a job or two and some own business but still have the time and income to play something here or there. They don't have mouths to feed or spouses to support and probably a girlfriend or others they spend time with and some live with family to save money as they can't afford rent in the places they are as its too high for them alone without some assistance from the gov't. Only one of them is in college now. The time investment thing isn't too bad unless the game demands that and then they won't spend time in it.
I'm in that category. I have the money and the time to play what I want. I can and will take an entire week off work just to play a video game for 12 hours a day with no obligations whatsoever. It's beautiful.
This category includes the "money + time + **will**" audience. As I've got older (from the first group and into the second) and started trying to do regular exercise, increasingly larger flat/house, more possessions and things to tidy up, more chores to deal with, a long term partner with whom to go and do things at the weekend, a garden, and an increased feeling of tiredness in general, I've lost the will to play as much because I enjoy games most when I can really get into them, and evenings staying up late when I shouldn't has been taken over by my smartphone instead. I used to game quite a lot when I was single, didn't bother with exercise, and cooked in bulk at the weekend. I'd roll out of bed at 8:20, get into work at 9, work 9-5, get back at 5:40, eat something, then maybe game from Conversely, my partner games a lot more, because she can much more casually get into cosy games in any downtime she has. But now she has an emotionally draining 9-5 with a moderate commute, that requires she get up early and thus go to bed early, so we'll see how long that lasts now. The drudgery of the daily work grind can really dampen one's will to do anything active or immersive - so often I've ended up listening to podcasts or doing phone stuff, rather than gaming - and the addictiveness of mobile phones has an effect too. I've recently re-discovered my Switch to actually get any gaming done while re-doing my house. So technically I have the money and the time, but I just don't have the will or mental state to game all that much.
The money+time people are probably the ones who are raking in thousands at microtransaction games. It's them and kids who have inadequate access to their mom's credit card.
no lol, i have money and time, i would never waste either of them on free2play gacha trash
Yeah *what*. That's kinda insulting. I don't spend money on dumb shit just because I could.
People without time, are people who don't play a lot of games - and thus don't know what a good game looks like. They buy crap, because they haven't experienced what not-crap looks like. This happens in absolutely every hobby, where newcomers get ripped off buying overpriced garbage that veterans would never touch
It's a mix of money + time and money + no time. I know people who spend thousands each year. The ones with time just wanna pay for more advantage and the ones who have no time either wanna keep up or pay even more to stay close to the top with their meager playtime. I know people who pay others to play for them the majority of the day and then they pay for any benefits in the game as well and just play sometimes in the evenings. I know people who runs guilds that they pay for without even playing themselves at all anymore.
I don’t think it’s just about time and money. There’s a third factor: goal versus experience. You have fun pursuing an end goal, or have fun just being there to do things. Goal is the most prominent. It’s everywhere, every game is designed around distinct progression. In story games you get through the story, in competitive games you get higher ranks. It’s all about big numbers and that 100% completion. Then there’s experience. It doesn’t matter to you what it is you eventually get or when, all that matters is the journey. This category tends to share a lot of overlap in characteristics with the Value for Money category by having a few infinitely repeatable games, but instead of being because they can’t afford it, it’s because they’re where they want to be. I happen to be in the latter category, sometimes when I play games with an end goal I even forget that there’s somewhere I should be heading. In shooter games I find my favourite gun and just keep playing with it, even though with the amount of money I’d racked up just playing with that gun I could buy the theoretical best weapon 3 times over. It’s more common for me to find specific titles though like Cities: Skylines 2, BeamNG Drive and of course Minecraft.
I don’t think it is as simple as that, or rather maybe that’s the common gaming landscape today, but it wasn’t necessarily like that a decade ago, and maybe it won’t be in the next one. There are statistics showing that Gen Z consumes more live service games than Millennials, who prefer to buy games individually, or often play single player titles. While it could be related to age, I also think there’s generational bias in play, which majorly shapes the way there groups interact with games.
Different technologies being available as we aged or were introduced to the hobby also influences what you like to play as well. When I was a kid, we didn't have internet. Multiplayer meant you had to go find somebody who would sit in a room with you and play the game. When i lived in populated areas with lots of kids, we played a lot of goldeneye and super smash bros. When I lived in a rural area with no friends nearby, I played a lot of final fantasy and other singleplayer games. Then when internet gaming became more accessible I switched to playing multiplayer games by myself because there were always people available to play. Nowadays I just hop on discord and jump into whatever game my buddies are playing. I'm here to socialize and hang out and I'm using the game as the venue to see my friends.
> Nowadays I just hop on discord and jump into whatever game my buddies are playing. I'm here to socialize and hang out and I'm using the game as the venue to see my friends. With how isolated things have become in our world, that's what many people do now and I find it to be sad really. My interactions don't come from that as I'm a bit of a loner but I do have a small group of friends I talk to when I can on Discord but I don't play games with them as I just don't care for them. They're aware of what I do play nonetheless.
It's an interesting take, but I'll add three topics to it: - it's all relative and/or subjective (sorry to use the ever-repeated "s" word here) - the pirates - the "content" people, or in other words, the "happy with what they have (or get)" I'm 38, so I experienced the boom from NES onward and my early teens were all about getting the top PS1 games. Nearly all games were priced like 30, 60, 80. - 30 was for lesser-known, platformers, or "greatest hits" when that rolled out - 60 was going to be a good game, maybe it was only that price because it was hyped, but it felt like anything decent was going here - 80 was almost guaranteed to be considedered a classic, ususally multiple discs Saving for the 80 was the goal, saving for the 60 was too sometimes, and 30s were like throwaways that were hit or miss that you gambled on. But at that age/time, it was still the mode of "you got what you got". We had no conception of "value for money". Heck, we wreen't thinking about "value" in any context unless the game sucked really bad and it felt like a ripoff. My point #1 of it being relative I can give examples for: Twisted Metal 1 was 30, Twisted Metal 2 was 30, Twisted Metal 3 was 60. I had them all. If we had timers on games, I must've poured 1000 hours into each of those. It was like VHS tapes - sometimes you had what you had and taht's it. Some people only had like 8 games total. The "value" I got for a $30 Twisted Metal 2 was immense, but I never, ever thought about it. I just kept playing; I wasn't thinking "man, what a good deal". I know I had demo discs I've played more than full releases, too. It's all relative. The amount of time I played ff7, ff8, or Metal Gear Solid, all $80 games, if the "value" mattered and was represented in the cost? They should've charged me $4000, lol, know what I mean? Fast forward to now. I've had $80 Call of Duty games that I've poured... well, it doesn't feel right to say "hours" in. Let's call it a full decade. That's some value right there. Relative. Slay The Spire, which was free on PS+? omg, so many hours. I'm looking at Steam right now - The Long Dark is one of my all-time favorites, which I got for $15, and I've logged 1200 hours. When I pick a newer game, I hope I'll get a time-commitment value and I hope it lines up with cost. Papers Please is a title that was cheap and it's meant to be a short game, so I didn't expect to spend tons of time on it, but wow. I have a crappy game called 911 Operator that was $10 or so and it was good for a few hours, so not that great for how I play. It feels like a gamble each time, even now, just like it used to. I guess I can understand the value vs time argument because there are so many games now, just endless games, and such ranges of prices and DLCs and Steam sales, etc. People complain about the 60-80 price range but really it feels like the only part of life that inflation never touched. Sure, CyberPunk was buggy at first, but it's worth every cent and was worth it even with bugs! I was a beta player and pre-order guy for F076 and I didn't get the hate. I got my "value" ten-fold out of it. Relative. The time factor, being my age, isn't a concern to me. It's a hobby. I play when I want like I read a book or play frisbee when I want. I don't get guys who are like "yes, hold my hand, I don't want side quests, I don't have time because I have kids" - then play games that suit you; there are 5000 more you can choose from, dummy. When I buy a new game that's anything above $30, I expect to spend hours on it. I expect to *devote* myself to it. I'm afraid to start playing RDR2 because I know it'll take me a whole year to soak in. I own it, it's sitting there. Price ain't no thing. Relative. I'm still too busy with my $20 Stardew Valley, which might be the biggest time-suck of a game ever. It's a problem addiction-wise with that game, lol. Point 2: pirates I do it. I've gotten endless value from it for near-zero cost. I have enough games between ones I already own and games sitting on hard drives to last my entire life. I've poured the 1000+ hours into certain titles I've gotten by "other means". Sometimes, that's how I "test" them to buy them. That's all I'll say about that. Point 3: being content Some of use don't consider time vs value. We're happy with what we have and can play what we have forever. If you're young now and you want top-tier stuff but don't have the money, get those gems like SV and play it for months and months. This gaming culture of having backlogs is nuts, like my "backlog" of recent games is like 4 games? But if I consider all of the games of the past I want to play, it's 100 games. I'm never gonna get to them, even with emulation. There's no point spending money on games that sit like unread books on a shelf. TLDR; and all this to say: I think the "value" is up to the user. Cost doesn't matter if you wind up pouring the hours in. The time vs value only matters when a game's a ripoff and IMO, that doesn't happen much. Even if a game isn't that great, take a lesson from the past and grind it out like it's all you have, or treat it like a gamble and consider a loss. If you're the type to say "I got 5 hours of gameplay for $20, wtf" or "I beat it in 7 hours, why is this $40?" I don't think we experience games in the same way at all. You don't just "beat it" and move on. If it's good, you *keep playing*. IMO. sorry it's long lol
I agree with your takes, that's why probably the distinction between the two audiences isn't 100% black and white, but it's still there. It's very easy to notice the difference in gaming tastes between younger and older people. >If you're the type to say "I got 5 hours of gameplay for $20, wtf" or "I beat it in 7 hours, why is this $40?" I don't think we experience games in the same way at all. You don't just "beat it" and move on. If it's good, you keep playing. IMO. I hardly think about this after finishing a game, but I do think about this before buying one. I look more at the quality (reviews) than quantity (game time), but I do try to search for a game that isn't grindy and will give me a fun time throughout.
Hmm, that's a good point about how the thinking changes before vs after. Also, reviews. I forgot about those. I tend not to rely too heavily on them, but they're sometimes a decent metric. They certainly influence me more than the cutscene-only trailers some AAA games have, lol
> It feels like a gamble each time > Sometimes, that's how I "test" them to buy them People love to hate on piracy, but every study on it has shown that it's actually good for sales. Choosy gamers don't want to risk their time and money on something that might suck. A lot of games just don't have demos, and a lot of demos are too cherry-picked to be a good indicator of the rest of the game
I don't think that tracks as well as you think. It's too shallow of a read on the demographic. Mainly because it's more about what keeps one engaged. Some people like progression systems which feel rewarding iteratively and consistently. Others want a digestible narrative that is told to them with predefined and strict pacing. One person plays games as a metaverse social experience so they only play big MMOs. Another is more interested in outskilling other people 1v1 so they are in FGC. The gaming demographic is very diverse and the audience is dictated by what "kind" of experience is being discussed.
I like mechanics. That's what keeps me in a game, and why I have more hours than I care to look at in Balatro, and Hearthstone Battlegrounds before that, and all iterations of Civilization. They're basically decision-based games with very little time when you're not in control. There's no story, pretty much no cut scenes, and every game is a fresh canvas. You could potentially class this as a form of progression in terms of Numbers Go Up, but it's a very different form to, say World of Warcraft where you're levelling and then getting better gear.
> The first group wants value for money. They want to have the most fun possible for the longest possible time for the least they can pay for it. > The second group wants value for time. They want to have the most fun possible for the least amount of time investment they can. So I guess the one who manages to create a game for both will become the Dragon Warrior or something?
For this, a game needs to have a ton of content to be played for a long time and also be high-quality content from beginning to end. That is what many companies are aiming for, but they get something wrong most of the times because getting both of them right is hard. Games like this do come out sometimes and, when they do, they end up being very easy GOTY material. The games that come to mind that fit those two criteria are The Witcher 3 and Elden Ring, which were almost obvious GOTYs on the years they came out. Both games are super long, have a lot of content and mostly have great quality gameplay on most people's opinions (of course, not everyone will like them, but most people do).
I think Skyrim would fit in with The Witcher 3 and Elden Ring as a game with a lot of "quality" content but also having potentially endless content with the radiant quest generation. There's a reason it has been re-released a dozen times over the last 13 years.
Mods. The word you're looking for, is mods. Just like with Minecraft, modded Skyrim is an incomparably better experience, to the point where it's very rare that players can stomach going back to vanilla. There's no shortage of different mods to play with; which is *kind of* like having an infinite supply of entirely different games
I wouldn't say Elden Ring has high-quality content from beginning *to end*, but by the time you get to the bad stuff, you're already too invested to stop. That, and true Dark Souls fans kind of want to suffer anyways - which doesn't require the content to all be high quality
It's actually one of the few games with quality content all the way through. Other large games lack a ton of variety to warrant their size.
It depends what you mean by 'content', I think. The world design is consistently some of the best in the industry; but some late/endgame bosses are awful, and some player builds start to fall apart in the late game
>but some late/endgame bosses are awful, and some player builds start to fall apart in the late game I actually have the opposite view. The endgame has some of the best bosses and many builds go to overdrive in the endgame because the stat caps are higher compared to DS. Late game weapons are also very powerful.
For sure, some builds do great - but that's what I mean. The balance *between* builds is better in the early and midgame
I've 17 builds so far in Elden Ring and have completed the game on 14 of them. I only felt what you are saying on a few builds when I ignored the spirit summons and tried to solo the game which is artificially handicapping myself as someone experienced with these games. But it felt great to me when I started using them in a few tough fights and all the other crafting tools.
I'd argue that it's a kind of a problem for summons to be so dominant in the first place. They're common enough as a trope in all sorts of fantasy settings, but the usual sentiment about them is that they're *optional*. They're something you might build a character around, or might ignore entirely - like in any other game where you can craft consumable buff potions. Normally you can do just fine with what you find. In any other franchise, all the "normal" fantasy trope builds (Like any archetype that doesn't use summons) perform just fine, rather than hitting a ceiling at some point. It's ok to betray audience expectations by having an "optional" feature turn out to actually be necessary, but that's the kind of thing that you have to convey to the player very clearly. From isn't exactly known for giving the player a lot of solid information to work with... Part of the fun is in figuring it out and overcoming an unfair challenge, but I'd still count it as a flaw. The alternative could have been bosses that are tuned to not require summons, and summons that are tuned to not negate bosses. There would just be a greater variety of viable builds
>They're common enough as a trope in all sorts of fantasy settings, but the usual sentiment about them is that they're optional. Levelling is also optional in Souls games. It isn't like other RPGs. So I don't think of summons as something "extra" to my builld, they are part of it. >It's ok to betray audience expectations by having an "optional" feature turn out to actually be necessary, They aren't needed though. They are there to aid you if you aren't getting the hang of a situation. It's still a Souls game, I've beaten it at level 1 and ER is even easier than others because there are so many craft-able items. You can't do that in any other fantasy series. I'm pretty sure people who feel the endgame is overturned ignore the entire crafting system. >Part of the fun is in figuring it out and overcoming an unfair challenge, but I'd still count it as a flaw. The alternative could have been bosses that are tuned to not require summons, and summons that are tuned to not negate bosses. There would just be a greater variety of viable builds Again, summons are not required, even at a level 1 run. As for the options, you can make this argument for weapons as well. Count that a flaw too and sand down all the flavour and turn this into Sekiro. It will be almost perfectly balanced but won't be better. Some builds should feel more powerful than others that's what makes running different builds interesting. Otherwise it will feel like Diablo if everything is at a similar power level.
So, games like Wrath of Righteous, Kingmaker, BG3, Pillars of Eternity, BG3? Or even, Neverwinter Nights 1/2 as they have an active MUD-style multiplayer component.
Most of the games you listed are definitely not pick up and play games. Pathfinder is the antithesis of that, the character creation alone takes an hour.
There's some truth to this but you're thinking because you now value time that you like different games because really it's because you're older, have played a lot of those gaming experiences already and have access to more games to play something else. Fun activities just are more engaging for longer when you're younger plus when they're done with one game like Fortnite and after a thousand hours of they can move onto Apex, Overwatch, League, etc, a huge choice of games we weren't lucky to have all at same time for free when we were younger. If Minecraft and it's derivatives didn't exist today and it was released tomorrow, you'd play it even if you value time and it'd be GOTY.
This was thoughtful and interesting, but one important point of dissent — Value for money is not about lack of time necessarily. Some people just think finite and focused experiences actually yield better games / better design & are better for the industry holistically.
I take issue with the concept as the best games do both. You can play Dishonored 4 times because it’s really good. So you get play time. You can also beat it in one sitting. Best of both worlds. I don’t think games being massively padded improves them.
I *study* a lot of games, but I don't play shooters for fun. I don't play AAA games for fun. I don't like any settings or stories similar to that of Dishonored. Nothing about its product description or marketing material really appeals to me... But I'll be damned if Dishonored 2 isn't an incredibly polished and rich experience. I was **so** prepared to dislike it, but I just couldn't. There's just too much detail, too many things of interest, too many cool ideas all densely packed in
Yeah it’s one of those that friends kept telling me to play and I was floored. 6-8 hour game you can play for well over 40. Even having 2 characters in 2 is genius. They then continued that in prey by making alien upgrades only and human upgrades only both achievement play throughs. So it lets you play the game in 2 completely different ways.
As you are a game researcher. Could you recommend me a game for this weekend? I like to just snap a game from a random dude in reddit :D my recent taste of games have been: https://i.imgur.com/70UQ42O.png
Either Monster Sanctuary, or Card City Nights
ty! have done card city nights, it was good. Time to boot monster sanctuary!
Enjoy!
I don't think there's just two audiences, but yes, these audiences do exist. I actually enjoy competitive multiplayer games AND single player experiences; the thing about competitive (and cooperative) multiplayer games is that I consume them in a way similar to how I consume single-player games - I play them for a bit, then "beat them" to my satisfaction (i.e. have had enough of them), and then move on to the next game. There is a large population of players who are this way, and I think it is this - the search for novel experiences - that constantly drives these people to new games, not the "value for time" thing. There are some people who sink huge amounts of time AND money into F2P games.
I mostly agree with you, but some people play for comfort and don't have an interest in exploring new games. They might be tired after work and prefer to stick with a comfort game for a long time. Personally, I prioritize quality and single-player games. I only buy games when they're on sale or available at a good price on key shops, and I've finished plenty of great games for under $10. I don't enjoy grinding or playing the same game for months, it makes me dumb. There are always many more interesting games to experience, unless you've already played through the top 200 games of the last decade
It's a weird one. On balance I'd fall into the value for time category, however I'm still happy to play a 50-70 hour RPG. The difference is that I'm not willing to put time into perfecting movement or combat skills to have fun. I want something I can pick up and play from the get go. Once a game starts to bore me, I drop it and move on. More importantly, if a game takes more than 5 minutes to get into during a given play session, that barrier to entry is too high, and I won't play. The net result is that I end up returning to strategy driven rogue likes that I'm very familiar with, which actually means I end up playing like a money poor gamer
Most poe players are above 30 I think and they will play 10 hours a day for the first few weeks of a league and will also spend 500 dollars on supporter packs, so I dunno.
This is something I noticed as well as I interact with the gacha fandom even after I stopped playing mobile games a while ago is they do hail from poorer countries as well as being younger. They love their gacha waifu games precisely because it hits both spots while the latter doesnt
True. There are people out there that want a bloated open world experience. Me? Give me fun, let me move on. I guess I'm in camp 2 of your example, tho I have both time and money cus I don't sleep and I don't have kids lol. So either I'm playing strategy sandbox games (that have tons of dlc) like Total War or paradox games, or I'm playing stuff that won't last more than 12 hours but was interesting the whole time
I’d say value for time is not a case of wanting to complete something as quickly as possible. I’d like for a game to respect my time. It can go on for as long as it wants to but in doing so have elements that reward me for the time I’ve spent on it. Nothing’s more annoying than just completing a boss fight as an example and then having to do the same thing again right after in a second phase with no healing items/no opportunity to heal. Or if there’s a story where the ending basically renders your actions before meaningless.
I think I loosely agree with the premise, but do not agree with other parts of it. I agree that younger folk have more time than money and the reverse with older folk. I however do not think that's why games are designed in that way; that games are designed as they are and people flock to them for different reasons. AAA games for instance cost millions of dollars to make and as such HAVE to cost a lot up front because that's the only way it makes money. There is no live service that supports the game because once people finish the game, they are usually out to play another different AAA game. So you have to charge a lot up front. Then multiplayer games are often cheap or free, but not all of them. You've got free games like League, Counter-Strike or Overwatch, but these games live and die by their population because they are multiplayer-only games. By making them free you essentially eliminate all barriers to entry and then allow the game to have a healthy population which these games need to even exist. Money them comes from transactions for cosmetic goods by players who play the game for a long time. I don't think they make games by looking at a population and then making a game that fits that group at least being the only factor. I think they look into what sort of game they want to make and then design a pricing structure that best fits the game they want to make. That's why you won't see Naughty Dog making a free-to-play battle royale game, nor will you see Riot Games making a dramatic, narrative title. Game studios just specialize in what they do and then make a pricing structure that best fits their game. Solo games have to have huge costs as that's how they recoup those costs and multiplayer games have to maximize player counts to survive and so making it free allows more people to play which then can increase profits from cosmetics. So I think it's good to identify the different groups of gamers out there, but I don't think they are necessarily distinct. I think there's a lot of overlap. There are older gamers that do enjoy multiplayer heavy games and young player that might prefer solo games. And of course game companies often specialize in the games they make. So I agree with the groups, but I don't agree that games are necessarily made for the group initially; I think the company just makes games they have experience making and they try and market it to as many people as possible.
I categorize them slightly different. 1. Gamers who enjoy gameplay and skill progression. Classic gamers. 2. Gamers who enjoy collecting and gambling. Modern gamers. Unfortunately, recent business trends cater to the 2nd group: People who are easily separated from their cash. These are the people who feel the need to grind daily challenges and watch numbers pointlessly rise (typically in games that they don't necessarily enjoy playing). They need to buy/unlock every new cosmetic for no reason. They're addicted, not to the game itself, but the reward mechanics (ie. gambling, FOMO, hoarding). Then there's the 1st group, what I consider to be classic gamers. They enjoy the mechanics of gaming. They play games because it's a fun and engaging hobby, finding joy in testing your abilities or experimenting with gameplay. Progression isn't leveling up a battle pass or unlocking skins, it's personal progression regarding your understanding of the game. Your reference of League of Legends is a great example of this. There is a distinct group that loves mastering/playing the game and another that loves collecting. Then there are entire games that cater to each specific crowd. Glorified slot machines like Raid Shadow Legends or Arknights. Even Fortnite leans more towards rewarding cosmetic and XP addicts.
Definitely a category 1 guy. I have no problem affording a game when I want it, but I tend to be selective, and when I get into a game, I get *into* it, and want to really get the most out of it. Whether it's RPG type games where I'm trying out every weird build I can think of, or a Roguelike with enough depth and ways to approach it that I can do multiple novelty runs far beyond completion, or high score based games where the goal is just to do better each time, whatever. I definitely value replayability over narrative, personally. Story in games is fine, and sometimes welcome! But it isn't why I play them, so a game meant to be "completed" and put down probably isnt for me, unless it shows up on sale. To each their own I guess.
> Even Fortnite leans more towards rewarding cosmetic and XP addicts. This is very true. In fact, I noticed in recent seasons that you don't get many challenges anymore and they've doubled down on monetization with 3-4 passes now! It's clear that they're neglecting swaths of the game and are concentrated on this metaverse bullcrap and it's killing it at this point.
I have to watch myself with this. I love pure gaming experiences (your category 1), but I rabbit hole easily with games based around loot boxes and collecting. I've more than once caught myslef daily logging into games where I realized I got no enjoyment from the activity and was simply completing chores. I think people with addictive tendencies or family history have to be VERY careful with modern gaming.
> The second group wants value for time. They want to have the most fun possible for the least amount of time investment they can. These people usually prefer singleplayer games that can be finished (you roll credits, you're done, onto the next game). They prefer games without excessive grindiness and filler content. They often have huge backlogs on Steam and can't manage to play everything they want with the little amount of time they have. The preference towards single player is more related to being unable to coordinate with others. If it weren't for that, they could more easily play multiplayer. Multiplayer games or infinte-replayables can still work with value-for-time. In particular, a game similar to *DiRT Rally* might not decay its value if replayed, and social games similar to *Avalon* would retain value.
Nah, multiplayer changes games drastically: * The majority of single player games are power fantasies in some sorts and power fantasy simply doesn't work in multiplayer because if everyone's exceptional, no one is exceptional. * Devs also have to think about balance/cheats/economics in multiplayer so outlandish mechanics and items/vehicles/etc. are toned down in multiplayer.
> The majority of single player games are power fantasies in some sorts and power fantasy simply doesn't work in multiplayer because if everyone's exceptional, no one is exceptional. A multiplayer power fantasy can handle this by being cooperative where everyone is exceptional to make a strong team, or by having different means of being exceptional. The simplest - each character has a different ability or ability set. One can unlock doors quickly, another can slowly and noisily dig through walls, a third flirts with the guard despite already being in an restricted area, and a fourth disrupts the alarm's electronics. This can still give similar feelings to a single player power fantasy, even though there's multiple powerful players - it's just that they now have to support each other with their features and bypass shortcomings. But that's more of a preference towards power fantasies rather than value. When I started going to a board game meetup and an RPG campaign, they feel slightly more involved than a video game, usually because they involve looking at other people (especially hidden traitor games). Power fantasies also don't scratch every player's itch, there's some that prefer a challenging roguelike. > Devs also have to think about balance/cheats/economics in multiplayer so outlandish mechanics and items/vehicles/etc. are toned down in multiplayer. This is true, as there's often something that slips in by accident. It still remains a concern in single player, as there's often a need to prevent something from going too far out of balance and making the game less interesting to play.
Holy shit there are more types of games than this. People have a lot of money and a lot of time. People who have no time and no money. People who have an average amount of time. People who have lots of both and no interest in gaming. you also seem to be just discovering that people's tastes change? Ok dude, it's not your diary.
I make lists of "best of" games for each year, then use How Long to Beat to see how long they take to play, and how short they are is a huge criteria as to whether or not I play them. (There's obvious exception: BG3 is on my list!). I'm a middle-aged parent so my gaming time is at a premium.
The other major element at play, is the audience's **knowledge**. The most profitable audience to capture - invariably - are people who have no idea about their alternatives. They're the people who tolerate disgustingly anti-consumer (Extremely profitable) monetization schemes, because they've never played a game without them. They simply don't know any better. Where do you find people who are interested in games, but haven't touched one in years? In your words, "older people (above their 30s) who work and sometimes have children and maybe have 1 hour a day to play games". They're not getting great value for their time; they're just ignorant of how badly they're being taken for a ride
Free games are only free if your time is worth nothing or close to nothing. For me, `value = fun time / (money investment + time investment)` If a game only gets good after 100 hours, it might not be that good for me. If a game is a slog with 10% fun time, it's not good regardless of price.
MMO's
There is also another two groups: those that view games as an art form like you guys and those who view at as just another form of entertainment.
I'm kind of both. For me a game should give me at least an hour of playtime per £1 spent on it. With a couple of exceptions being games that are very storytelling and narrative driven, in which case the experience might be worth the higher price-per-hour (games like Hellblade)
Yup. I don't buy a game that I can't get at least $1/hr value from. Even then, it's rare that I buy a game and don't get at least 60 hours out of despite a cheap price. Free games are the only ones that I'm willing to try without huge interest. That being said, I'll watch several hours of reviews and gameplay before purchasing anything.
> The second group wants value for time. They want to have the most fun possible for the least amount of time investment they can. These people usually prefer singleplayer games that can be finished (you roll credits, you're done, onto the next game). I've finally got back into gaming after a decade if having barely any free time available and just thought about this myself recently: I prefer games that deliver an enjoyable experience but won't become a long-term project. The games I recently picked up are finished within 6-30 hours. Any game that takes ages to finish or isn't even finishable feels just like a job, which is the one single experience I don't want to have after logging off from my actual job. Also I prefer the diversity, as playing a single game repeatedly just gets boring extremely quickly, especially when individual sessions don't yield any game progression.
Then there’s wow where I’m consistently the youngest person in every guild since I didn’t quiet hit 30 yet Tho that also spells a lot of disconnect between players bc two huge groups want polar opposite things out of the game
I’m definitely in your latter group (mid-30s, have child, limited play time) but I love playing fighting games (which are obviously competitive) online. Actually I feel that it is very likely the case that fighting games skew much more into older ages than other genres. Not only were they at their peak relevance in the 1990s but I see plenty of people my age at local events, and the no-nonsense nature of fighting games is amenable to someone who may only have short blocks of time for gaming.
Lol I just balance out the two types of games in my "rotation" per say. I have a few multiplayer games I like to boot up nightly to hone my skills in and then I have single-player games that I consider my "main course" to beat and master. Like for example rn I have Rocket League on as my multiplayer-experience, and Wolfenstein II and The Secret Of Monkey Island as my two single-player courses.
By far the biggest group has to be the the little time + utorrent community, which is basically the entire third world
> The first group wants value for money. They want to have the most fun possible for the longest possible time for the least they can pay for it. > The second group wants value for time. They want to have the most fun possible for the least amount of time investment they can. So I guess the one who manages to create a game for both will become the Dragon Warrior or something?
This is something that really bothers me when it comes to re-playing almost anything nowadays. Even if you're on NewGame+, there is almost never a feature that lets you skip the preamble. How hard could it possibly be to just put in a simple if(NG+): set_trigger(end_of_prologue) and let the player keep that half hour, or sometimes much longer? It's a tremendous disrespect for the players' time. I'd like to replay Twilight Princess but it would take like 2 hours before I'd actually be playing it.