The Free Zone: What Makes Games Hardcore or Casual?
Richard Aioshi returns with his column this week, this time tackling the subject of hardcore vs. casual in the free to play market.
Column By Richard Aihoshi on October 19, 2009
It's impossible to pay even a passing amount of attention to the free to play sector without running into some topic related to these two types of gameplay. Quite often, we see them addressed as if they form a basic dichotomy; i.e. hardcore versus casual. Sometimes, advanced casual works its way in as a third category. Either way, it generally seems as if we're all supposed to know and understand the differences.
While it can be easy to use these two or three groupings, I prefer to think along the lines of a spectrum that runs from extremely hardcore at one end to very casual on the other. In addition, I don't necessarily position any given game at a single point. That's because key elements can fall at different places; for example, in a release with sieging and crafting, the latter can be considerably more casual. Whether this is good design is questionable, but it does happen, presumably to help broaden a title's potential market.
Of course, this model just reflects my opinion. I certainly don't expect it to be seen as definitive since I don't regard it as such myself. In fact, I always welcome opportunities to learn more about this subject area by discussing it with other people, especially those whose games and work are directly related. However, it's not always easy to find developers willing to state their thoughts for public consumption, so when Eric Liu, Global Manager of Redbana US Corp., agreed to do so, I made sure he didn't have time to change his mind.
Liu feels that if we take the current range of free to play games and apply our preconceived notions of hardcore versus casual, we'll find quite a bit of overlap. The reason he offers is that publishers and developers are trying to get the best of both worlds in order to appeal to the widest possible audience. In my opinion, that can be a questionable goal, but regardless, we both believe that teams that are experimenting by adapting and combining diverse aesthetics and play styles ranging from well-known to not so familiar and sometimes even new.
According to Liu, this means the market isn't as saturated as it may seem. He explains this by saying "MMO fans just don't have a way to differentiate one free to play offering from another... which isn't surprising if you think about it, since the entire category is defined by its business model, not by how you play." Furthermore, he's also up front about the name not being completely accurate, stating "In fact, these games aren't free because they often require many hours to get into, and time is money."
That said, he doesn't get stuck on the nomenclature. Instead, he moves on to something far more important, which is understanding what makes F2P attractive. "First, the value isn't that it's free, but that users can pick and choose what to pay for. This is what makes free to play games at once casual and hardcore. You can play one for five minutes and put it away forever, or spend 100 hours with it and buy every premium item, map and character upgrade - whatever suits you."
;)
In reality, it's
almost always a blend between
casual and hardcore.
I don't disagree in theory, but at the level of practical implementations, I'd have to question whether many games truly succeed at being both. It strikes me that if we use time as our key yardstick, we'd be more likely to play a casual game in a hardcore manner than vice versa.
In any event, Liu expands on his assertion by stating that a F2P release's appeal should be based on the flexibility of its gameplay systems. This is because it's vital to have a large population. Since relatively few users generate revenue, the value of the virtual goods they purchase depends on the size of the audience. In other words, "Who wants to pay $5 for an item if you can't show it off to your peers?" Taking this to the next higher level, he also believes that the quality of an online free to play game's experience is highly correlated with the size and diversity of its player base, and that to have wide reach, a design must be both intuitive and deep.
Naturally, I wanted to know how Liu feels Redbana's own endeavor, Audition, fits with his thinking. The internationally popular title certainly comes across as casual since it involves participating in music-based competitions rather than violent battles in order to gain experience. The company likes to call it a rhythm MMO, and it's said to feature popular mainstream tunes from both Korea and the US, including artists like Lady Gaga and Sean Kingston.
While readily admitting that the concept is very casual - you tap the arrow keys in tune with the rhythm of the song to execute dance moves - Liu added that there are almost 20 gameplay modes ranging from simple and casual to extremely difficult - and arguably hardcore. Audition's greatest asset, he says, is that it provides something for everyone.
I'm not sure it's possible for any game to meet this claim, but I do believe more casual ones have greater potential to attract broader audiences. Can they also incorporate enough depth to appeal to the hardcore? I think so, although only to a degree. Accordingly, with more free to play implementations sure to appear for me to check out, I look forward to seeing how well they can and will actually fare in this regard.
More The Free Zone Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
He is the former Editor of RPG Vault and his column, focusing on free to play MMOs, appears on MMORPG.com every Monday.
Another way of seeing it might be that most MMOs start off as casual at the beginning and gradually ramp up the complexity and difficulty as the character progresses in the game, and as the player is exposed to more of the different game mechanics they gradually become more hardcore without perhaps even noticing it. I think that how successful the game is at creating that gradual curve contributes so much to how good the game is in the long term. It's a very delicate balance. If the game curve is too slow and long we call it a casual or maybe a grindfest game. If the curve is too abrupt then it seems more hardcore but really all the developer has done is introduce more elements sooner than it should have or made the game harder too soon. Balancing that tipping point between where the game starts casual and becomes more hardcore and making it appear seamless is one of the factors to success for the game overall.
You don't want to make the game too hard too soon or players will leave after becoming frustrated. Prolonging the move from low-level to high-level without some sort of huge incentive is equally as frustrating as the player get bored with waiting and start to leave. Hopefully that incentive is that the core gameplay itself is actually =fun= which seems like a no-brainer but seems to be lacking in many MMOs.
There aren't too many (if any) mmo's that start the player at max level with every single ability at their disposal, although obviously every MMO handles their learning curve differently. Of course, once the blend into a more hardcore game at high levels the real trick is to provide enough content for the hardcore to enjoy and continue some progression, but that is a whole other topic!
I agree with you about the casual-hardcore learning curve in games in terms of difficulty, Slayblaze. But then there's also the difference between defining something as casual due to the skill level required to play on an adequate level, or because it is a big time sink, or both.
Who is the more hardcore player between these two: The player who plays for 5-10 hours a week and downs all the hardest bosses in the game, or is the best PvPer on the server, barely spending time on other aspects of it, or the player who plays 20-25 hours a week and has a harder time downing bosses and spends more time on crafting and questing? Such things need to be defined in the casual hardcore spectrum, and games should cater to players looking for different experiences with such things, providing as many options for depth and complexity for all play styles, whether you are into difficult boss encounters or long hours of questing and crafting.
Very interesting read. These days Hardcore isn't what it was imo. In games such as Everquest I suppose there is more room for a hardcore player than most new games. Lately it's more of a hardcore casual thing going on. However there are still certain niche games that cater to the hardcore player, these games taking more 'skill' and gaming mechanics requiring more attention on certain key points of an event ect. It's really hard to define hardcore anymore, everyone has a different opinion what it should be, or how things should be in terms of 'hard' content or amounts of time spent on content.
damn, Nexon stole my idea... oh wait, they made it for hardcore DDR-ers! Woo!
My idea still stands - making it more casual with just the original four arrows...
Reasonable read, Aioshi, I would agree - and I too question this method of overlap, as it creates a sort of grey, instead of the white or black that so many crave, oh well, at least no one can really complain that it is too black or too white for their preference?
In my opinion, all F2P games are casual by definition, as they let you stop playing for as many days as you like without feeling guilty about your money going down the drain. All P2P games are, by this same definition, "hardcore". You can always spot a "hardcore" title from a mile off, even without a monthly fee - they offer dungeons, elaborate crafting systems and other ways to keep the player busy for hours on end.
Intrestingly enough MMOs seem to be becoming more casual - faster transportation, simplified crafting, lighter death penalties... And that's a good thing. If a player wants to play a casual game in a hardcore manner, that's his personal choice. Those who try to play hardcore titles casually, say 2 hours a day, usually find they spend half the time just getting from A to B. That's not fun. I think we should have fewer titles with the ambition to be "worlds" and more games that offer fun and flexibility.