Can you balance creating casual and hardcore games?

[zoombapup]

Its weird really. I'm quite a hardcore gamer, but I enjoy the simplicity of several casual mechanics and I want to create some casual games.

I know of quite a few people from the harcore retail industry that are now working in the casual game market.

So my question is.. can an indie developer span the casual and hardcore markets successfully?

[PoV]

With the clone and copy strategy, no. There's already enough people out there cloning and copying. If you're new, you better have something new too.

That, and casual play games can be for core games too. It doesn't have to be a match 3.

[zoombapup]

I didnt say anything about match 3 or cloning. I wouldnt do that.

But there is definitely a thing about casual games that appeals as a small developer, because we are still in the running, even though it will get harder to compete.

[jankoM]

Well my opinion is that diversity makes you better and gives you a wider perspective... (that is not the reason here but) I am making 2 games right now, very casual and very hardcore ... I love that I can change between them and express both sides of my personality.

And there is another thing... when a heavy metal band makes a ballade, you know it's going to be great and far better (and more emotional) than any balladic romeo can ever make. Well I don't know if this also holds for games, it is a little different thing..

[Tertsi]

We too are (currently inactively) making a casual game, although our first one was a hardcore one and our third one will be too. Overall I find hardcore game development to be a bit more fun but not too much more. After the second game, if my plans stay the same and the sales of the casual game aren't absolutely incredible, we'll stick to hardcore games.

I also play both casual and hardcore games.

[arcadetown]

An excellent game to look at is WW2 Pacific Heroes. They took a typically hardcore genre that tends to produce overly complex games, gave it a casual facelife, simple and perfect mouse controls, made it easy to get into, step up the difficulty appropriately, yet the mechanics still have solid depth (you lose steam if you climb to steep or gain speed when descend for example). Very smart execution IMO and our users sure seem to appreciate it.

[Anthony Flack]

when a heavy metal band makes a ballade, you know it's going to be great and far better (and more emotional) than any balladic romeo can ever make.

Err... I think this analogy probably reveals more about your own taste than anything else...

Personally, I am fully intending to make my games more casual in future. Not in any sell-out kind of way. Just because the main defining characteristics of casual games - pick up and play, intuitive controls, simple to understand, low frustration factor, a smooth difficulty curve, able to play in short bursts - are assets that any game would benefit from, and I would like to make more effort to apply these to "hardcore" genres.

[woo]

I would post a more thoughtful response, but Anthony just said everything I would have... and said it a lot better than I could have. So I'm just gonna say "ditto" and then shut up.
-Andrew Douglas
http://theoreticalgames.com

[zoombapup]

I hear you there Brian.. I was thinking of more casual casual, not trying to mix the two (although, you know we're still looking at a casual Air Ace, if we can find a contractor to do the plane code).

But its still a lot of work for a game like that, compared to the casual games I want to make (which are mostly 2D and the work is definitely a lot less I feel).

[MrQ]

I have worked on alot of 'hardcore' titles and I think the biggest difference comes down to the market.
When I first started our casual title, I was told to get the target audience right, do alot of research about what sells and why.

So I think it's possible, most developers that have created bigger or more complex titles have the talent to make casual games, but I think it's more about understanding the market and catering to the target audience. I would think its possible to develop both kinds of titles under the one company, but probably best to not split focus and concentrate on one untill it's safe enough to branch out.

my 2c

[PoV]

I didnt say anything about match 3 or cloning. I wouldnt do that.

Sorry, I thought it was just an open question, and responded to it as such.

[zoombapup]

Sorry, yeah, when I re-read my question, it does sound like "Can you make a hardcore game casual".

What I meant was, can a game developer who makes hardcore games, actually successfully build BOTH hardcore games AND casual games at the same time.

Given that the accessibility of casual games would be my goal for the hardcore games too.

I suppose the main issue is one of focus isnt it. Does the hardcore tendancy tend to throw you off when it comes to the focus of your casual game.

But then again, one thing we are seeing, is a move for casual games to become "deeper" perhaps? Deeper not in terms of control complexity, but more in terms of combinational complexity. No longer do you just "match 3", you now "match 3, but go for chains" and then "match 3, and go for chains, but try and fill up some container" etc.. See what I mean? The meta game elements seem to be getting more varied now.

The great thing about casual games, is that casual gamers dont have the baggage of a long term gaming history. So they dont get upset if they see a mechanic reused. They dont really have a bias against someone because 20 years ago they released a game that sucked. They dont know the "history" of a genre, so they look at each product in its own right. Thats quite refreshing.

Or am I wrong? are casual gamers as jaded and biased as the rest?

[Anthony Flack]

They dont really have a bias against someone because 20 years ago they released a game that sucked.

Ouch! Neither do I! I'm willing to give them another shot!

After 20 years, though. No sooner.

[PoV]

Well, either way. I still think far too many developers are barking up the wrong tree, as far as game types go. Take Diablo and Fate. Both games are very approachable, as far as controls are concerned. Diablo has the satanism content problem, but Fate remedies that and adds a cute dog and cat. It has easy controls (point and click), instant gratification (kill 'em, get stuff), and not too much pressure (enemies don't hunt you). It's a gaming experience with some depth, and thanks to the RPG level system, doesn't require lightning fast reflexes to stay ahead of the game. If you care to enjoy it, it's something more to contrast or compliment your Bejeweled or Zuma gaming.

We're a mature enough of an industry I'd hope. We should be able to balance the complexity and difficulty to appeal to a larger market.

[MerscomMan]

Keep in mind the sales and marketing efforts of trying to do both core and casual. The typical customer for a casual game is a female 30+, the typical customer for a core game is males 15-25. Of course there is some cross-over and exceptions but the bulk of your sales will come from this demographic. If you are a core game developer and decide to do a casual game, you need to find a whole new set of sites and blogs to promote your game, get a new mailing list and really build up a new customer base (vice versa if you are a casual developer). Given the limited resources developers have, wouldn't it be better really trying to build your brand with one target market than trying to be the GM of games (and we see how well it's worked for GM).

[zoombapup]

Lloyd, I agree with you on the whole.

But I dont think I'm ready to rule out one or the other. I do see that there is some crossover for certain sites (arcadetown for instance, if you look at Pacific Fighters that brian mentions in this thread).

So there is some way to push a more "casual hardcore" game experience, by making it feel hardcore but make it casual in accessibility.

But I do agree about the branding issues. I'd keep the real casual stuff seperate completely.

But given that most casual games are sold through portals, it doesnt REALLY matter about our own branding, becuase we wouldnt be able to really generate much branding for our casual games anyway. I'm thinking of developing casual games for portal sites and hardcore casual games for ourselves.

I'll talk to you about this at casuality, because its something I know you have a lot of experience with. Perhaps I'm being stubborn or not seeing the bigger picture.

[Dan MacDonald]

Personally, I couldn't. I have a job and a family etc, as a result I only have the resources to do one game to my standard of production. The path of releasing a game every 6 to 8 months to support my game development habit doesn't appeal to me. I have a lot of ideas, but most would take longer then that to realize.

As a result I'd rather focus on a game that really appeals to my sensibilities. Things like skill based gameplay where your ability to manipulate the controls actually affects how successful you are in the game. I love this kind of game mechanic, but it's one that's totally lost from casual games because anything that forces the users to do anything more then click really doesn't catch on.

I'd rather putz around taking a long time with something I really appreciate then try to grind out casual interpretations of games i like on a shorter development cycle.

Gabe Newell made a statement in an interview with EDGE magazine that I don't think is 100% correct, but I agree with the sentiment. He said "I've never seen a great game fail because it targeted the wrong market".

[MrQ]

I think Gabe is right to some extent, A truly great game is going todo well no matter what.

But I think realistically we need to think about the failures of building a new games company. Alot of companies have quite a few failures or under-achievers before they start to become profitible. If your going to split your energy and go for two different markets, your chance of failure is going to increase.

I prefer to focus all the energy into one brand or IP to get things off the ground. If that takes off and is profitible that's when I would be looking to possibly branch out, or choose to continue buildinging an established IP.

[Omega]

You can definitely do it! And it can be a clone.

The lead of the most popular third-party mod for the original Half Life did this. He made Natural Selection, then he took a break after his web site was hacked and Half Life 2 was coming out anyway. He was going to create Natural Selection 2, a game based on the newer Half Life 2 engine, which could be sold for money in retail stores and on steam.

So, you have the guy who made the #1 mod for which he has received no money, on Half-Life 1, the number one game of all time.

He then wrote the Zen of Sudoku, which is obviously a clone of regular Sudoku games that have already been out before his at the time, and there were probably a hundred sudoku games already out when he released his last year.

So, as you can see, you can do well if you make a great product, regardless of whether you are making something original (Natural Selection) or not (Sudoku.)

(I'm not counting Counter Strike or Day of Defeat as third-party anymore, since those mods are involved with Valve and have already sold in retail channels and Valve's Steam for multiple years, while his game had thousands of players and hundreds of servers at the same time, and he has never sold it, as far as I know.)

[zoombapup]

Dan: yeah, I hear what youre saying, but I tend to think that games are games, I dont care if someone else pidgeon holes what I create into the "casual" or "hardcore" labels, to me I would do it because I enjoy making it.

But games that sell as casual games have a couple of attractive factors for me right now.

1) Lots of partners to work with on selling/marketing
2) Small dev cycle in comparison
3) 2D
4) Not technologically complex
5) I still see a niche

Having said that, I also dont want to rule out making 3d games that I'm also passionate about. So I am kind of just thinking that the main problem is one of branding. If I forget about trying to build a brand for the casual games, then maybe it isnt an issue.

Gah.. I guess I'll look at it while out in amsterdam, talk to a few folks there.

[Chris Evans]

If you are a core game developer and decide to do a casual game, you need to find a whole new set of sites and blogs to promote your game, get a new mailing list and really build up a new customer base (vice versa if you are a casual developer).

I think this is a really good point.

Personally, I think if you have limited resources you'll have a hard time hopping back and forth the Casual/Core fence. What if for example you work on Air Ace (Core Game) and Cafeteria Craze (Casual Game) at the same time. You finish Air Ace and it sells moderately well initially. You decide to spend the next several months finishing Cafeteria Craze but now you don't have time to do updates for Air Ace and it loses steam. If you decide to put Cafeteria Craze on the back burner, you risk falling behind the curve in the casual market, which could mean even more development time down the line to bring the game back up to current market standards.

Sometimes you have to prepare not just for failure but also success. If your Core game does well initially you want to be in a position to keep the momentum with updates and community features. If your casual game does well, you want to be able to knock out a sequel fairly quick.

If you really want to do both, I think your best bet is to outsource heavily one of the games including the programming. If you can put together two teams it could probably work. I believe Berserker (of Enkord) and Gabriel (Mystery Studios) does this. But unless you live in a fairly low cost country, you're going to need quite a bit of capital (and profit) to finance and sustain the teams.

It might be a good idea to create one successful game (Core or Casual) first and then use the profits from that to expand. If you're trying to develop both a Casual and a Core game to minimize risk, I think it actually increases it. Most of us have a hard time financing and making one successful game. Now imagine trying to do it twice in two completely different market segments. It's not impossible, but it's definitely harder than focusing your time and resources on one market/game.

[zoombapup]

Well, what I've been thinking about, is to outsource the dev of our core games as much as possible, because they are a big time sink and really just need production rather than development.

Then look at actually building the casual games ourselves. Or rather, prototyping to the point where we can either dev it ourselves or more likely outsource it once we know the full limits of the design.

In fact, thats mostly what I'd prefer to do, do the prototyping in house and then outsource the production work to someone else.

I really dont think that the marketing is a huge issue here. If we're doing casual games, we're looking at using a publisher partner, so we really dont have any brand to market (its the publisher brand then).

I guess if we were actually targetting our own casual customers, then it might make more sense. But I dont think thats the direction we want to take.

[MrQ]

You can definitely do it! And it can be a clone.
The lead of the most popular third-party mod for the original Half Life did this. He made Natural Selection, then he took a break after his web site was hacked and Half Life 2 was coming out anyway. He was going to create Natural Selection 2, a game based on the newer Half Life 2 engine, which could be sold for money in retail stores and on steam.
He then wrote the Zen of Sudoku, which is obviously a clone of regular Sudoku games that have already been out before his at the time, and there were probably a hundred sudoku games already out when he released his last year.
So, as you can see, you can do well if you make a great product, regardless of whether you are making something original (Natural Selection) or not (Sudoku.)

Actually I'm not sure this is really a good success story example. Natural selection isn't for sale, so from a business point of view it's not actually such a great thing (But a damn good mod). He's done damn good work, I think it was wise to do the Zen of Soduku game and I hope NS2 takes off for them.

The Core market is alot different these days, it's controlled by the big publishers and they sink alot of money into thier dev. The days of old are gone where a small team can produce an AAA title in thier garage and make it big. I think it's still possible, but alot harder these days.
Small startups, no matter how experienced the devs, should focus on one game at a time. There may be some cases where they have a contract on the side but I think that focusing on one type of game and market is a better investment of time and money.

I personally enjoy making core games, because that's what I like to play. But I know I have a better chance of getting started developing for the casual market. Hopefully later we will be able to fund our own core game.

[Omega]

I also agree that it's better to figure out what type of software you want to write, and just stick with it.