Do you consider yourself a "hardcore" gamer?

[Kathandira]

Hello friends. Good to see you all.

Simple and direct question: Do you consider yourself a "hardcore" gamer?

In this case, I'd classify a hardcore gamer as someone who actively goes after gaming content to be on the conversation, who plays videogames consistently while trying to improve and get better at them, and tries to actually follow what's happening in the industry (new titles, gaming rumours, etc).

In the other hand, a casual gamer is someone who plays games when it has a bit of free time, and just enjoys the format without trying to engage too much with it.

Which one are you?

I consider myself to be a casual-core player. I don't have the time or drive to be what I feel is a Hard Core player any more. I play at the high tier end of a casual gamer. I invest a lot of time researching and educating myself on my chosen game, and I will play all aspects of it. But I do have a 8-5 job, and other hobbies, so I will never break that ceiling into the hardcore crowd.

[T-34]

I'm neither, I play games because they're fun.

Some people find it fun to better themselves and be good at something.
That could be knitting, pole-vaulting, even playing a video game. The whole world is your oyster if you find it fun to better yourself.

Some people find it fun to be wilfully bad at stuff.
For some strange reason such people are shunned by others.

[Fencers]

so yeah, IMO - while there might be shades of casual, I don't think just chatting on the forums qualifies as hardcore.

It does actually. Engagement (of product or media) is one of the most critical factors of any product sold.

It is how companies determine your user group category entirely. So much so, it is often more important to have engagement than sales on the initial product offering.

Personal definitions are functionally useless.

[Witchblade77]

It does actually. Engagement (of product or media) is one of the most critical factors of any product sold.

It is how companies determine your user group category entirely. So much so, it is often more important to have engagement than sales on the initial product offering.

Personal definitions are functionally useless.

market definitions seem to be creating new definitions for old names then that only have meaning for the people working in your specific industry. /shrug. and because it keeps bothering me. engagement with outside media does not necessarily translate into purchases of any kind, I would imagine that you are aware of that. so I'm not even sure how that market terminology translates into any usable data any more then personal definitions do.

[Frostfred]

It does actually. Engagement (of product or media) is one of the most critical factors of any product sold.

It is how companies determine your user group category entirely. So much so, it is often more important to have engagement than sales on the initial product offering.

Personal definitions are functionally useless.

Would you then think someone who doesn't play video games at all, but is interested in the surroundings and engages in conversation, a hardcore gamer? I don't know. In the end, it's more of a spectrum than binary imo.

OT: Yes, I'm definitely hardcore. While there have been times in which I didn't play at all for months during the past few years due to other interests at the time or work, it's one of my hobbies I always come back to. Currently, on average, I'd say I play 3-4 hours a day. Usually not too competitive, I like chilling out in games, also enjoy a good story, though depending on the genre I'm also in for a challenge.

[Fencers]

market definitions seem to be creating new definitions for old names then that only have meaning for the people working in your specific industry. /shrug. and because it keeps bothering me. engagement with outside media does not necessarily translate into purchases of any kind, I would imagine that you are aware of that. so I'm not even sure how that market terminology translates into any usable data any more then personal definitions do.

It is useful still. Turning engagement into sales is great. But that is the business of marketers. Engagement, even if you don't buy anything, is still high highly valuable. Because it shapes perception.

Are you familiar with the fast fashion retailer Zara? Do you know how they got so successful? By making it a store you saw everyone browsing/talking about. They specifically tailored the store and its offering to create a lot of engagement. All those people browsing in Zara, even if they didn't buy anything at that store, contributed to the perception of the brand. Which made them a lot of money and turned into a lot of real estate investment in S. Florida IIRC.

As I posted earlier, it is very likely you as a participant simply take a lot of notions for granted and have your own personal notions of engagement. But you are actively participating in a niche that the majority of consumers do not even know exists.

Would you then think someone who doesn't play video games at all, but is interested in the surroundings and engages in conversation, a hardcore gamer? I don't know. In the end, it's more of a spectrum than binary imo.

One would not likely be the other. Even if they were, the total % of persons engaged in discussing media or products they do not actively use, buy or watch would be outliers so small in % that it is de minimis. Exceptions prove the rule.

Do you think there is a practical or market influence of people that like talking about movies but never watch movies? The talking still helps the movie. Even if they never see it and in doing on platforms such as this- they are engaging with that media at a rate most who do see movies simply do not engage with at all.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

hardcore but that won't change even if other responsibilities, the desire to play video games won't go away short of reality forcing me not to.

[Witchblade77]

It is useful still. Turning engagement into sales is great. But that is the business of marketers. Engagement, even if you don't buy anything, is still high highly valuable. Because it shapes perception.

Are you familiar with the fast fashion retailer Zara? Do you know how they got so successful? By making it a store you saw everyone browsing/talking about. They specifically tailored the store and its offering to create a lot of engagement. All those people browsing in Zara, even if they didn't buy anything at that store, contributed to the perception of the brand. Which made them a lot of money and turned into a lot of real estate investment in S. Florida IIRC.

As I posted earlier, it is very likely you as a participant simply take a lot of notions for granted and have your own personal notions of engagement. But you are actively participating in a niche that the majority of consumers do not even know exists.


One would not likely be the other. Even if they were, the total % of persons engaged in discussing media or products they do not actively use, buy or watch would be outliers so small in % that it is de minimis. Exceptions prove the rule.

Do you think there is a practical or market influence of people that like talking about movies but never watch movies? The talking still helps the movie. Even if they never see it and in doing on platforms such as this- they are engaging with that media at a rate most who do see movies simply do not engage with at all.

I'm having trouble understanding this.

1. someone who goes to the movies and doesn't engage with social media... is not going to be affected by discussions of said movies on social media
2. discussions on social media can actively hurt how well something does, as word of mouth can be very negative ahead of time and discourage fence sitters from engaging with the media financially.
3. classifying players who have no innate understanding of video game language and players who may play regularly but don't care social media engagement as both being casual - doesn't make much sense as they are very different players. likewise, classifying someone who spends time on the forums but plays sporadically/non competitively and someone who plays competitively/regularly as both being hardcore - also doesn't make any sense as you can't really use the same strategies to sell to them.

I understand that this is your job but either something is getting lost in translation, or company you work for - prioritizes the wrong thing. IMO.

[Tyris Flare]

I'm having trouble understanding this.

1. someone who goes to the movies and doesn't engage with social media... is not going to be affected by discussions of said movies on social media
2. discussions on social media can actively hurt how well something does, as word of mouth can be very negative ahead of time and discourage fence sitters from engaging with the media financially.
3. classifying players who have no innate understanding of video game language and players who may play regularly but don't care social media engagement as both being casual - doesn't make much sense as they are very different players. likewise, classifying someone who spends time on the forums but plays sporadically/non competitively and someone who plays competitively/regularly as both being hardcore - also doesn't make any sense as you can't really use the same strategies to sell to them.

I understand that this is your job but either something is getting lost in translation, or company you work for - prioritizes the wrong thing. IMO.

It's hyper capitalist corpo-speak and very disengaged from material reality. Generally best to ignore it.

[Zenfoldor]

The term sounds ugly, but I would aspire to be one. All I'm lacking is the free time. I absolutely love and keep up with gaming far beyond the casual fan, but at the same time, my weekly play time hovers around 10 hours or so. To some that is very low.

Also, I don't visit gaming forums to improve my gaming knowledge, that is a side effect. I visit gaming forums because I find it rewarding to discuss gaming with other people.

[Frostfred]

One would not likely be the other. Even if they were, the total % of persons engaged in discussing media or products they do not actively use, buy or watch would be outliers so small in % that it is de minimis. Exceptions prove the rule.

Do you think there is a practical or market influence of people that like talking about movies but never watch movies? The talking still helps the movie. Even if they never see it and in doing on platforms such as this- they are engaging with that media at a rate most who do see movies simply do not engage with at all.

I have some friends that played in the past, but barely play at all these days (due to other hobbies, becoming parents, etc). Maybe an hour on a weekend if they can. Still, some of them keep updated about gaming news and like talking about new stuff that comes out, or sometimes just reminisce about past times spent together in games. Maybe anecdotal, but I think there are quite a few people out there like them, that still enjoy it as a medium, or the stories within. People that played when growing up, but just don't have the time anymore due to other things going on in their lives. That may become a larger demographic over time, as more and more people reach that certain age that grew up with video games. I personally wouldn't call any of them "hardcore gamer".

But as said, it's all a spectrum, and one (time spent overall) can be different from the other (time spent playing). E.g. my brother spends more time on video games than me, because he's much more into gaming news, keeps up to date with announcements of some bigger studios, etc, whereas I definitely play more than him. Though, by most definitions, both of us would be considered 'hardcore' anyway.

As for movies: Probably not, as they are a much lower time sink than video games. Even most short story-based games take a few hours, whereas you're done with most movies in 1.5-2 hours.

[Fencers]

I'm having trouble understanding this.

1. someone who goes to the movies and doesn't engage with social media... is not going to be affected by discussions of said movies on social media

I think you are misunderstanding.

What I said was that it is unlikely someone who doesn't watch movies engages in discussing movies. Though even if such a person existed, which statistically would be not worth mentioning, engagement of any kind still would be a boon for the brand or product.

The person willing to engage with a product on any level other than purchase still carries a lot of value. Not everyone needs to buy a shirt at the store, but if the store looks busy it will attach more potential customers.

2. discussions on social media can actively hurt how well something does, as word of mouth can be very negative ahead of time and discourage fence sitters from engaging with the media financially.

They can. Few people release a movie or game thinking it's bad or will fail. Content creators and distributors still like to see engagement in their products.

As a creator or distributor, you are not going to say no to engagement or ignore the engagement they generate.

For example, recently the film Morbius bombed in its initial box office run. Though the movie got a lot of engagement online. Mostly in mockery of the movie being bad. Even the star of the film, Jared Leto, got in on the joke/mockery. The whole "Morbin' Time" meme. This made Sony re-release the film in theaters (at a cost to Sony) and the film bombed a second time.

However, this 'negative' engagement did pay off. Morbius did very well on the ancillary market in licensing on the strength of platform engagement. You can look this up on Nielsen and Showbuzz Daily and look up the minutes and ancillary tracking for the film if you are curious.

They, creators and distros, are never going to ignore the engagement on a given product. Whether or not that translates to direct sales.

Twitter wasn't even making money. They just sold for billions.

AT&T bought Warner and took on massive debt. They handed it off the Discovery and DSC will sell it next year for billions- these properties that are losing money. Their engagement is some of the highest in the industry second only to Disney.

3. classifying players who have no innate understanding of video game language and players who may play regularly but don't care social media engagement as both being casual - doesn't make much sense as they are very different players.

To you.

I understand that this is your job but either something is getting lost in translation, or company you work for - prioritizes the wrong thing. IMO.

Clients set what they are looking for in their category users. They want to know how to tailor their products.

MRs don't interject. It is not my job to define a 'casual' or 'hardcore' gamer. The customer(s) define themselves based on a huge scale of cross-informational data. Companies such as the one I work for, just record and organize the data for clients, and they all work the same. If we (researchers) were not successful at it, then no one would make money. Companies would not put a significant amount of money into this type of research if did not result in success.

It's not like Sega, Pepsi, Amazon, Samsung, or Naughty Dog sent out one proposal querying the user type of customers. They send out dozens and dozens of these things in varying stages of detail and specificity with multiple companies. Continuously.

Today, I got the 167th study proposal for the year 2022 on Quaker Chewy Granola Bars in my email to be run in blocks of 100 people in 8 markets. Last year, the singular company I work for right now ran 180+ studies on Quaker Chewy Granola Bars. With just my company. They contract other companies to run a similar volume of studies to query their user types all year round, every year.

When I worked on the Injustice games, we (my company) alone ran 18 studies on that game alone within like 8 months.

You might think it's different than what I am saying here- but it's not. You just feel that way.

I am telling you exactly how film, television, video games, hair dryers, and washing machines are tailored to the marketplace and what they are aiming for. Most importantly, to whom they are aimed.

[Witchblade77]

I'm sorry... did you just say that its not your job to define casual vs hardcore and that customers SELF DEFINE, while in the same breath stating that personal definitions are useless?

no wonder so much marketing out there misses the mark by a mile and even companies that seem to be to fail, go under....

[AcidicSyn]

By your definition I'd put myself in the middle..

I have a steam wishlist and I follow some projects with interest. I look out for new games in the genres I enjoy and gaming is my most favored hobby. I don't play every day, or on any kind of schedule, but when I find that I have time to have fun, I typically look for a video game over, say, playing softball or going to the pub. I like gardening too but that's more of a weekend morning thing for me with the space I have.

The term I would use is hobbyist or enthusiast.

[The Stormbringer]

I'm on a forum dedicated primarily to discussing a single game. I think that makes all of us here "hardcore".

[Yunru]

Depends on a type of a game.

MMOs -- this days not so much as its a waste of time to hardcore gated content (as you just run out of stuff to do)
PVP shooters -- I usualy go pretty hardcore on those games, learning maps, best weapons, best tactics, best player trashing and so on
Rpgs -- going very hardcore, trying to find every secret, kill every boss
Build games -- i am super hardcore in those games.... way to much.... i am as bad as some guy named Josh
Card games -- lol casual dont care
Anything with fishing --- F*** fishing, skip, so boring
Tower defense --- nope nope nope
Adult games --- depends on a game
Strategy games --- Real time .. hardcore , turn based .. sleep
Singleplayer games --- usualy it depends on type of game, but i take it easy usualy so it lasts longer
Farming games --- cant be bothered to do math to sell corn, so casual
Survival games --- depends if its pvp or pve. For pve i dont realy care, but for pvp i have a bad habbit to go over my limit (curse you Rust)

I probaly forgot some, but it doesnt realy matter that much.

I also have a habbit to go hardcore on bad games... like realy bad ones...forcing myself to finish them (harvestelia).

Also i bet you guys have some steam games you never touched. I recomend you play them.

[conceptKitty]

Nope, just casual.

[Fencers]

I'm sorry... did you just say that its not your job to define casual vs hardcore and that customers SELF DEFINE, while in the same breath stating that personal definitions are useless?

Hm. Are you reading my posts carefully?

"I interview people that self-identify and/or are categorically classified as casual and hardcore gamers every week."

"Clients set what they are looking for in their category users. They want to know how to tailor their products."

"The customer(s) define themselves based on a huge scale of cross-informational data."

Both these things exist. You don't query users based on one set of criteria. There is a whole spectrum. Focus groups and market tests are run in huge batches. People are sampled from many different categories and they end up being defined by X or Y in the process. Which is exhaustive.

This is called Nested Quotas.

For example, there can be on any given PRL a bunch of groupings that define a category.

Frequency
User 1
User 2
User 3

Product Type
Quota 1
Quota 2
Quota 3

Engagement Type
User A
User B
User C

Brand Awareness
Quota A
Quota B
Quota C

User Type
User 1A
user 2A

User Frequency
Quota 1A
Quota 2A

These are then nested within each other using various algorithms and screener Q data. Then it is cross-referenced from similar studies.

Such as- User 1/Quota 2/User A/User 1A/Quota A/Quota 2A. This can be any combination by the way. Thousands of subsets depending on the study and length.

Further broken down by gender, age, income, education level, geography, language, persons in H.H, employment, employment type, employment frequency, and ethnicity. Which looks something like F18-35 becomes F1, F1 User 1 becomes, F1U1, and so on.

My brother. Companies have every possible range mapped out. There isn't as much variance among customers as you think; people really aren't the unique agents they imagine themselves as being to some extent. The vast majority of users of any given product fall within categories that are very common for that product type.

Sure, there might be some customers who are 'casual' by X or Y criteria. Though that number of people is largely insignificant- this is called de minimis. No one is spending time and money to capture less than 1% of potential customers usually in the game they are developing.

There are very few products targeted at the 'wrong' audience. Product owners and sellers know a lot about customers and how they think in macro.

Just as when someone complains about mobile games, DLC, or microtransactions on these forums- that is a minority. Content creators and distros have the data to show that means nothing and that aggressive monetization is hugely effective.

Look at what the mobile games brought in during the recent Q3 for Activision Blizzard. It's nearly the bulk of their revenue now.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/diablo...on-blizzard-q3

no wonder so much marketing out there misses the mark by a mile and even companies that seem to be to fail, go under....

marketing is a different field entirely. Very little of it "misses the mark". Marketing is the most powerful weapon in human history.

There is so much marketing being directed at you, that you are probably unaware of the sheer volume of it and have become sense-blind to it. Even if say, 100 campaigns failed. A million were successful in a given year. The hit ratio is extraordinarily high.

[Karlz0rz]

I used to be a hardcore gamer, playing 5+ hours almost every day(into the same game), trying to be good at it.
But these days, I just don't have the motivation or will power to commit that hard :P.

Granted, I did have fun back in the day, so I'm not complaining! <3

[Tumile]

Why do you consider social aspects to be part of hardcore gaming? What does being "on the conversation" or "trying to actually follow happening in the industry" with taking gaming seriously in terms of time and effort?
Seems like you're trying to conflatr fanboys and hardcore gamers for some reason.

Personally i'm neither of those really; When i play i play a lot, as much as i like, and do indeed try to become better at it through reasonable (=purely in-game) means. But there are also months where i do not bother with videogames at all.

But i couldn't give a rat's ass about "the industry", talking heads or widely held opinions among group X.
With perhaps one exception regarding the industry: I do keep half an eye out for signs of positive developments potentially leading to the creation of rare (temporal rarity, not stock rarity) worthwhile products.
But the puppets involved? Stuff 'em in a box where they don't get in my way or otherwise take up my attention; players, devs, influencers, you name it.

Because every "hardcore" gamer follows their main game religiously, it is directly tied to their performance and for most their enjoyment of the game, they might not exactly be tweeting about, but will usually take part in debates within their social groups regarding news on their game, such as Wow patches, predictions on developments, release states, or release dates.

Makes perfect sense to add "hardcore" social aspects to the criteria, never met a hardcore wow gamer who didnt fit the criteria, same is true in CSGO and League.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah yes, I usually read about sports news. That makes me a hardcore football player


That's honestly a weird requirement.
A 'hardcore gamer' would be someone who spends more than half of their day playing games

how many "hardcore Football players" do you know that doesn't keep up with football related news though? for me its a big fat 0.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. I play a lot of games, often and am especially keen on thinking and analyzing the games I play. I have worked in game and software development & publishing and now do marketing research for games (among other products too). Video games are around me practically every day.

Not a single person posting on this forum would ever qualify as a casual gamer by the way. Not one.

heavily depends on your qualification of a Casual gamer, the criteria from the industry? probably not, no. The criteria from a top 100 Mythic raider, most definitely. which is why OP tried to add perspective to the question, since there is no clear cut definition of a "Casual gamer", but obviously you know that already with your expertise. must have been a slip up, but I gotchu fam.