"I think living in Britain is what makes them fucking Casual Gamer's machines. All this 'Cool Britannia' shit means as far as the marketing guys are concerned is fast cars and girls with big tits are all that's worth releasing." (Felix.)

"The Dreamcast is going to be the Casual Gamer's machine with all of its outstanding arcade
conversions" (Fox18), then threads to, "Er, shouldn't a Casual Gamer's machine mean a bad thing? Sony's sounds like another Casual Gamer's machine (in my opinion)." (AnonX.)

Thanks to all the guys on the Forum. I'm sure they don't mind me lifting their thoughts.

The casual gamer seems to be in for some stick from the Forum, which is a bit unbalanced as no casual gamers are likely to bother to log on in the first place, but there you go; it seems to be a developing mood.

Are casual gamers as bad as all this indicates? Don't they have a role to play in game culture? The software companies certainly think so. They have an essential function and that is to walk up to the shelf, pick up any game, go to the till and part with cash. Without cash, alas, the game companies go bust and there are no more games at all. Simple market forces mean that if the numerical majority of gamers are perceived to be yearning for Tomb Raider 4, then that's what we're going to get. It's pointless moaning about it, and do we really think we would be getting Gran Turismo 2 if nobody bought Gran Turismo, however good it was? I think not. Hardcore gamers can't go moaning that developers release sequels they don't want while screaming for Quake 3 in the same breath; it's hypocritical. Also, a sobering thought: casual gamers are less likely to pirate games, making them more lucrative. Now there's a paradox.