The Great Myth of Casual

“Casual is going to destroy us all, everything about video games will be ruined/overtaken/whatever because of casual!”

This is, sadly, not much of hyperbolic statement as a paraphrase of some otherwise rational developers and businessmen in the gaming industry today. Look how fast casual is growing, it's new and different and therefore a threat.

I am reminded of pretty much every new format or business model introduced to every other form of entertainment in history. Recordings will ruin live music. Tv will ruin movies. Remember when reality shows were going to be the only thing left on television?

It's kind of sad to see that video games, only a decade ago so innovative and young, now have old men too set in their ways to see new opportunity. But this brings up the question of what that opportunity is, and how things will change because of it. After all, movies and television did eventually spell the death of the radio drama. On the other hand video never did kill the radio star, so what exactly will “casual” do?

Quite frankly, I think “casual” is just a generic and overly broad term that encompasses too many things right now.

One thing it covers is a new market. Those who just want to play a video game for a few minutes a day, or who just want the type of games from the era of duck hunt and tetris. Simple, straightforward games they don't really have to invest in. Both hard core audiences who just want a distraction on their phone and those who wouldn't spend $60 anyway are the types that will be buying “Fruit Ninja.”

I don't think this is really going to compete with Call of Duty. If you look at video game sales for 2011 you could be forgiven for thinking that this was the case though. Hardcore titles are seeing a large drop while casual soars, it must be connected right?

Well, you'd be forgiven for thinking such if you hadn't the slightest education in economics. Those who do will note that except for developing countries (which are still too poor for the most part to afford hardcore titles in large numbers anyway) the world has had a huge economic downshift.

Considering this, and that video games are entertainment it's little wonder sales of expensive games have gone down. The U.S. Has seen 9%+ unemployment for years, Europe has seen a slump and now faces a crisis, Japan has been in both financial trouble and stuck in a creative slump for years. The only thing to wonder at is why exactly anyone is at all is surprised that $60 entertainment products have faced slowing sales since the beginning of the downturn at the end of 2008.

At the same times the rise of “casual” titles like Farmville and Angry Birds is entirely unsurprising. Movies and other, cheaper forms of entertainment have always been seen as recession resistant, so the ability for cheap video games to rise is quite unsurprising.

In fact the video game industry should be thanking such companies for getting people to pay for such at all. Free “flash” (and otherwise) based games of similar or even surpassing quality (if not quantity) compared to such games as Fruit Ninja have been available for free, en masse, for over a decade. That companies can now charge for such things should be considered nothing short of remarkable.

Micropayments and Freemium

This is also sometimes falls under the term “casual” but is thankfully drawing away. There is, after all, little to be called casual about The Lord of the Rings Online, Team Fortress 2, or Heroes of Newerth. Freemium is just another new business model, and if it works better for some titles then more power to those who succeed with it.

I take it as a great sign that there's still enough competition in the business of video games for new business models to be readily embraced. And while the adoption of such is still sadly slowed down a bit from the heyday of video game innovation, the widespread adoption of such, or at least attempts at adopting it, could certainly teach other industries a thing or two.

Personally I find it amazing that I can't find any tv show episode I want at a reasonable price, if not free with ads, online and available whenever I want it.

But, to any saying “all games will now be this way” I'm tempted to laugh. Remember when everything was going to be an MMO? I certainly do. And while there are certain types of games that would do much better to switch towards such a model, I doubt the next GTA will be doing such, nor does it need to.

Movie theaters still exist despite the panic of home videos destroying them when VHS first came out. So too will the sixty dollar product survive. In fact the more options for a business model that developers have the better. While in game ads might be pretty much dead in the water for most types of games, it appears freemium will live on and healthy for a long time to come. And who knows, perhaps there is a way to combine “freemium” with $60 purchases, I say the best of luck to any brave enough to try.

Expensive Casual and Competition

Another noted rise is that of expensive casual, which I find a strange notion. Not because you can sell “Just Dance” for $60, but that companies would so readily believe such high margin games can continue unabated.

I would merely point to Guitar Hero and ponder the viability of Dancing and Fitness games to continue to sell like they do. How much advancement or even latitude for such things are there? Both “Zumba, Fitness” and “Just Dance” already have strong competition. And if history is any indication the market for such will quickly be exhausted.

But this of course isn't all there is too “expensive” casual. But the real key to this all is competition.

Welcome to Capitalism

Competition is, last time I looked, a large reason “hardcore” video games have gone from less than million dollars to an average of over twenty five million dollars a piece to produce (at least for AAA titles). With the very fast advent of casual and “social” titles the initial investment was low. There was no competition to be had, people were just guessing at what they were even doing.

But billions of dollars have suddenly sprung up around “Social/Casual” or whatever it is that we are calling it now. Billions of dollars means competition, it means those large profit margins are going to be crushed beneath the ever turning wheel.

Not six months ago I read an interview with the head of a studio espousing that Zynga couldn't be beat for facebook games. EA's introduction of “The Sims Social” at the number 2 spot in all facebook might just have made him eat those words, but then I doubt he was thinking of the kind of money a company like EA can bring to bear.

The point here is that Rovio, Zynga, anyone can be beaten. As an industry social games have just begun, and the monetized return of simple, straightforward games hasn't advanced much either.

What you play and where

The last thing I find interesting is a comment by a man I would otherwise have thought intelligent. “The next winner of the console cycle will be the one who figures out why X-Box Live Indie Games didn't become the next ios app store.”

Well, I just mentioned why casual titles have risen. Let's go over it. A: The world is in a recession, cheap entertainment thrives. B: It's finally been noted that the appeal of such “Tetris” like games never actually went away, and with smartphones and app stores there's now a solid way to monetize such. C: Social games and otherwise are essentially a new market.

Now, the only thing this comment connects to is B, and frankly I think this problem falls into a “screen size” issue. That issue is both simple and an incredible amount of people seem to be unaware of it. So what is is? The bigger the screen, the bigger the experience people want.

It is, really, that simple. Do people watch movies on their i-phones? If we are speaking of a general audience, no they don't. People watch them in movie theaters, they buy giant tv's to watch them on. But by the logic many in the video game industry go on they shouldn't. Their smartphone has a screen, they should do everything on that! It only makes sense.

But of course it doesn't. People still buy big screen tv's, and they still watch movies and the super bowl and etc. on them. In fact, for video the bigger the experience the bigger they want the screen. Most will watch tv on their big screen tv's, but a few more people will watch them on their smartphones or etc. Few will watch funny internet videos on their giant plasma screen, but hey there's no problem doing that on their I-pad. The smaller, more casual the experience, the smaller and more portable the screen size.

I'd be easily willing to bet the same principle holds for video games. Angry Birds on your giant plasma? It's not going to feel right. I doubt the title would have sold nearly as well on X-box Live Arcade even if it was the same $1 price as on mobile app stores. The wrong screen size just doesn't work for people.

But what about “Carnival Games”... well first off that's going to be selling for a lot less next generation. If only because balance theory will allow people to pay far less for it, or it's competition if the “Carnival” guys don't lower the price themselves. Secondly, it's still a bigger experience. It might not be “Gears of War”, but it's still more akin to a tv show compared to Angry Birds “funny internet video”.

One last note on something interesting, and that's control schemes. Geometry Wars relies on very precise inputs. Controls are an entirely other concern, something other than “screen size” that will help define what type of game is successful where. And so while the “screen size” effect might affect video in a large way, it will not be the only factor that in what video games sell well where. In fact I'd just call it something to keep in mind.

Conclusion, Narrow vs Broad, and Part 2

Large titles will still exist, and a (hopefully not THAT distant) resurrection of fortunes in the global economy will bring that back into focus and growth. Meanwhile for casual/social, the sector would be prepare to go through an economic principle best described as “narrowing”.

Let's take coffee as a metaphor. When it was first introduced as a product there was pretty much only one way to get it. You either wanted it that way or you didn't. Over two hundred years of development later we have drip, latte, espresso, mocha, americano, french press, iced, and this doesn't even cover the blend, roast, caffeinated or etc.

The point being that all markets start out with a narrow set of products targeted at a broad audience. And as they are developed the set of products will inevitably broaden, each targeting an ever narrower audience. And while certainly there will be products that have a larger audience appeal than any other, it will still never seem as broad as that first, glorious introduction.

The same will happen with social/casual games. And the race to see what that product is, as well as to be the next “Call of Duty” of such a market will be hectic indeed. Best of luck to all the contestants.

But this post can get even more rambling! A part 2 will be coming, connected to this in a way.

It basis is an interesting question: Does spending more money on games actually making them anymore fun?