Older gamers are a growth opportunity for AAA publishers
midiaresearch.com
midiaresearch.com
I don’t have hundreds or even dozens of hours to play around. Sometimes I have maybe 15 minutes once or twice a week.
It’s too late for me now, but I would’ve liked a game that’s a quick blast of fun. It can even be a long game, as long as I can make one step of progress in 15 minutes, it would work.
By convention, they often adopt the "roguelite" tag in some way or another, to represent a that there's a divide between play session and some kind of long-term metaprogression that accumulates as you keep playing sessions.
Developers keep crossing that "roguelite" design model with every other type of genre you can imagine: dungeon crawlers, platformers, deck-builders, city builders, rpgs, pachinko, solitaire, tower defense, 4X strategy, poker, etc
Not even enough time for all the updates before you can actually play.
This has been challenging to sit around the PS5 to update the system, then the firmware of the controller (!), and then the game itself. Annoying.
if you properly configure your PS5 setup; the system auto updates when you're not using it, the games are updated automatically. The only thing is the controller firmware update which happens maybe twice a year if at all.
I've bought a PS5 and got myself the PS+ subscriptions, and have been having a blast with pickup and play games, all different genres, and the instant resume from sleep also lends to quick gaming sessions.
I play less, but if I play, I take my time. Rimworld or Elite Dangerous are what I keep coming back to for different reasons.
Don't want that quick shot. I need it slow and serious.
I am very happy to spend time and money on games (and I do) -- but there are very few (no?) AAA or otherwise games that I have any interest whatsoever in. Most of them:
- are action games, which I am not interested in even though I was when I was younger
- require a server, which means that the game will stop working at some point and I won't be able to play it again in 10 or 20 years.
- are online multiplayer, which I've never had much tolerance for.
Games that appeal to me are being made, and I do buy them, of course. I'm not complaining. But none of the big studios are making them as far as I'm aware.
In that respect, video games are no different from books, movies, or TV shows. I choose entertainment based on the content, not on the form.
I view the difference as being like the difference between movies made by major studios and movies made by indie studios.
The AAA games are aimed at a broad demographic, and that determines what sort of gameplay they present. Indie games address smaller demographics and so are willing to be more experimental and creative.
I don't think one is better or worse than the other, but I do think that there is enough of a difference between the two that knowing what sort of studio made it gives you an idea of what to expect.
Live Service - No thank you.
Loot box - No thank you.
Season pass - No thank you (unless it's permanent like Helldivers 2). "Seasons" in general are a huge annoyance if you have limited time/opportunity to play.
Daily/weekly/monthly quests - No thank you. These often make the game feel like a second job with tasks you have to complete under time pressure.
Free to play - Probably no because it will have one or more of the above.
But so far, I see a "season pass" as a discount on buying a bundle of DLC items. This comes up in games where they have a bunch of new content scheduled, like adding characters to a fighting game. I generally see these as fine, as long as the price is acceptable. Which... well, some of them are getting pretty ridiculous now. Maybe wait until they go on a big discount. Season passes tend to go on discounts eventually, long after the initial sales surge falls off.
In contrast, a "battle pass" is a pure FOMO play. Do these timed things and get rewards, or else. I ignore these just on principle. Once they're gone, they're gone. You can't buy them at a discount later. They're pure manipulation, and I've decided to opt out.
I'm sure the research findings were once interesting, but in the linked post it's hard to determine where the research starts and where the SEO stuffing ends.