It's no secret that gaming has become more expensive with time. As gamers have demanded more quality from the developers, the technology required to both create and use such quality has also skyrocketed. With the release of the Playstation3, gamers saw a $600 price tag staring at them if they wanted every feature they've been clamoring for. While this price tag has dropped over time, so has the total functionality of the machine. The XBox360 by Microsoft has only kept its price lower by putting out a product with slightly lower maximum output. The XBox360 originally was a superior product to the Playstation3; probably because as much as gamers claimed they could notice the difference between 1080i and 1080p, they couldn't.
With the prospect of a gaming investment staring at the face of gamers, suddenly they had to decide whether or not it was worth it to start budgeting for video games. The majority of gamers also were coming to a point when there money was their own--the crop of young children during the Nintendo era had suddenly become a harvest of young professionals. These were men and women with their own money to spend, and could theoretically buy as many games as they desired. The question then is, how much do they really care? Are games at this point something to live for, or something that happens to happen while living?
I'm willing to put myself out there and say that most gamers actually made a conscious decision as to what type of gamer they were. Industry veterans might recognize the gamer type-buzzwords that were floated around a lot a few years: Hardcore, Core, Casual, etc. In a society and age when people struggled to individualize themselves, gaming certainly played its part. Just as people decided if they were the marriage type, or the workaholic type, or the political type, so did they decide whether they were the gaming type. Those that did now find themselves probably playing, ironically, one game a ton (World of Warcraft, Street Fighter IV, Modern Warfare 2, etc.) and others to completion. These gamers often maintain a shelf display of accomplishments (now in virtual form thanks to the onset of Achievements and Trophies.) The rest mostly play the games they're given, or find their systems collecting dust either under the DVD player or in the closet next to the rest of the party items.
The question then, is how does the industry move forward? Is it possible for one giant to create a platform facilitating of both cultures? Can one of these groups put forth enough actual buying power to legitimize catering to them? The serious gamers may not play too many games overall, or may buy their games used only to sell them back. The casual gamer may only buy the best games out there so as to insure their gaming time is well spent. With the advent of information being so robustly available to the common man, is it even worth publishing a game that isn't the highest quality?
My theory is that in the next 5 years the trend of gaming company consolidation will probably continue. Studios which can't afford to publicize their game to the masses, or polish it to a crisp will find themselves bought out by larger companies. Games intended for the serious gamer will continue to grow in quality and price, and the trend of fewer games per player will continue. Furthermore, the casual gamer will drift more towards smaller titles and digital distribution. Instant satisfaction and impulse buys will be provided by the $15, 6 hour title complete with a story to tell later.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the idea of self-assigning gamer type is a fashion which has gone the way of the CD collection and the long winded blog post. Perhaps gamers don't even care what they're called, and just want something to keep them occupied until the next big occupation comes. Thoughts?
