I'm not sure if you're asking me questions or a framework of questions to make point.
If they point is a more open ended laxidazical view of consumer product from a casual consumer pov then you've nailed it with spades. But comparing passive entertainment with interactive entertainment is like arguing why cats an dogs are different... They both have 4 legs, teeth, tails, etc... Right? When in fact the only thing they both are, is mammals...
The topic of core vs casual is an incredibly deep topic with lots of phycology... Core are driven by depth, casual are more driven by impulse... Core monotizes, casual are no more loyal than I am at the checkout register looking at a candy bar...
Casual experiences need to reach millions, core does not, but can lead to higher conversation of casual... It's quite a deep topic and one very closely guarded by most.
I don't mean to offend or dismiss as your message was very well written but it's an over simplification of very deep topics that branches into several directions of other potential conversations...
Now we are so off topic I forget what thread I'm replying to! Lol
No, it's not my intention to oversimplify, and I am well aware of the conflicts of interests, which is why I don't believe I need to tolerate any delusions as to the nature of "core" / "casual", especially when they are not "guarded" terms at all. They are marketing terms, first and foremost. The psychology is of course fascinating, but I lose interest when all I read about are designs to dupe people, to exploit primal unconscious behaviours (at least, that's what they believe they're doing - it might turn out to be as effective / reliable as "subliminal messaging").
My only point is that having "confidence" in a form of entertainment, as a "consumer", is not really the way most people (i.e. those outside of "business") think about it. It's like the way the media love to use the term "uncertainty" - it sounds profound, and is a great emotional tool (not really in the spirit of journalism, but hey), but it's actually meaningless to most "consumers" of said media.
In games that purport to offer a particular "experience", people generally want value for money, and they want what's advertised, but neither of those things are foremost on any capitalist concern (unlike profit) - except maybe as "target qualities", again in a marketing sense.
If GT turns out to no longer be your thing, there is no need to be afraid of moving on, "confidence" or not. In fact, we should have an attitude and ecosystem where finding and enjoying exactly what you want as an individual is both tolerated and provided. In such a situation, games would fare better if they were more transparently described and if gamers accepted that their tastes are their own, and nothing more.
There's enough room for it, supply and demand, if attitudes changed. One example is to bring back (in terms of prominence, for what is effectively frivolous "art") the idea of "patronage", as a sort of complementary / supplemental section of the industry. There are movements towards that already in Steam's Greenlight, Kickstarter more generally etc.; it just needs to be flipped around so that developers are "bidding" on ideas submitted by would-be "consumers" instead (which I know exists elsewhere, but why not for games also?).
