Well, speaking for myself obviously, my expectations change a lot. I personally think it's daft to expect the world to keep up, most of the time. And I'm far from "casual", although I don't identify with "core" either, because I get the impression it's not what it actually implies. Amar's "
real deal Joe" springs to mind. I'm not actually talking about "sim" vs. "arcade" specifically, though - presumably the two have different "core" groups?
Pandering to the so-called "core" "gamers", or rather the perceived notion of such groups, is actually damaging the diversity that such a creative medium needs. That's why you should follow your tastes and forget the idea of games as a "reliable" product or service, and simply remember that they are an extension of or addition to the other media for escapism such as books, film, boardgames etc. I'm not talking about functionality or "quality", merely "taste".
Nobody talks about "confidence" or "reliability" in the game of chess, or Monopoly or in the movie
Alien. They are experiences that appeal to different people in different ways, and that's exactly what computer games are, even though they express themselves and react to people differently than those other media do.
The focus on monetisation, rather than some kind of experiential innovation, in the games industry (hardly surprising, I'll grant you) results in the creeping tendency to apply utilitarian metrics to something that is throwaway (but still valued), abstract and non-essential as far as the "end-user" is concerned, "core" demographic (butt-kissing term to boot) be damned.
The bottom line I'm getting at is the "core" group (those for whom the game really scratches their itches) for any game is different from that for any other game. And it constantly shifts, whether or not the game itself changes, or even if the landscape (other games, hardware etc.) changes.
In that light, why, outside of pure monetary considerations, should a game change at all? Not your thing? Play a different game. Oh, there aren't enough to meet every niche in demand? I agree, that's my main issue with the economic handling of "games as a product". There is no reason, not even monetarily (reduce your marketing budget, for example), to try to "one-size-fits-all" gamers' tastes. Put like that, it's obviously a recipe for mediocrity, just as it is for other media, too.
