And I never said there was, but if you are a solo player and you are playing casually, that makes you a casual and solo player.
If the definition of casual play is rigid to the metric of time, assuming we’re going to use that logic and apply it to this discussion, nothing about solo play as a concept cancels that out. They are not at odds with each other, and one does not blanket the other because a solo player could be many things.
If you’re not playing this game every waking moment of your life and dedicating yourself to the incessant grinds, then why are you even playing?
Stupid casuals thinking they have the right to ask for something in my game. Don’t they know I pay the same subscription fee as them?
You’re clueless. I’m currently playing siege zero hour and WoW as my go to games so as usual you are wrong.
I have googled it. It’s how I found the actual definition.
You can’t be solo and casual. It’s an either or.
The words definition.
Never said it was. I’m using the actual definitions. Not my feelings.
Enlighten me, then. What is the definition?
Solo means to do something by yourself. Doesn’t really seem at odds with casual, or at least the definition you’ve provided us.
If you’re playing by yourself you’re automatically a solo player
Hence the term solo.
Casual is a metric of time. That doesn’t mean you only do solo content.
Yes.
Yes.
And I never tried to say that.
If you are playing for the metric of time that constitutes casual play, that makes you a casual player. A solo player can still play casually.
Which is why I said there’s overlap. I never said a casual player only solo plays. I never said that a solo player can only be casual.
All I ever said was is that casual solo players exist. If the only thing that constitutes someone being casual is the metric of time, then a solo player can be casual.
Unless you think there’s more to being a casual player?
Casual players don’t only play solo content.
So if you’re only playing solo content then you’re playing solo content.
By the definition you have provided, casual just means a metric of time.
Therefore, solo players can be casual players.
No. Solo players are solo players no matter how long they play because you’re never not playing solo.
So then raiders are not casual players? M+ players are not casual players? Even if they only play for 2-3 hours a week, which again, constitutes them being casual players by definition? Keep in mind that this is an argument you’ve used in this thread.
I guess I just don’t understand what your argument is, to be quite honest with you.
I just hauled out my Miriam Websters dictionary. Nowhere does it say anything about time.
Raiders can be casual players
Arena players can be casual players
Mplus pushers can be casual players.
Casual doesn’t have a skill tied to it.
It’s not an argument. And I won’t hold it against you 
Okay, so why can’t solo players be casual players if they can?
Because you deem it so?
Because solo players don’t partake in any group content and therefore only play solo.
I think the issue with solo casuals is solo and casual are measuring entirely different things. If you do something specifically to benefit solo players who are also casual, that isn’t something particularly likely to benefit the rest of casuals because solo players play the game in an entirely different fashion than non-solo casuals. One term measures frequency/length of play, the other measures player behavior. I think Snozh is basically contending that the player behavior difference between solos and all else is substantially more relevant from a game design perspective.
I’d wager that raiders and M+ players who only play 2-3 hours a week don’t partake in anything else outside of raids and M+, so by what you’ve just explained to me, that doesn’t make them casual, either. That just makes them raiders and M+ players, or “group-based players”.
Again, you said casual is a metric of time. At no point did you say casual is a metric of time and you have to engage with certain content to be considered as such.
So either you don’t believe the denotation of casual yourself, or you’re just making things up.
Winner winner chicken dinner.
And that’s a wager you would lose. Currently to push anything at a decent level requires both.
Again I’m setting the precedent that SOLO players are the difference.
You’re zoning in too hard on casual and ignoring the solo part.
This can work in the opposite direction, though.
I want to be clear here that I’m literally just using the logic that was established at the very beginning of this argument by Snozh himself. If Snozh has a different definition of casual, he’s more than welcome to share it with us, but he’s only ever said that casual just means metric of time. At no point (until now) did he establish discrepancies about what it means to be casual, except they look less like discrepancies and more reasons to save face because his argument doesn’t make sense.
If you are a solo player and you are playing the game for intermittent periods for short amounts of time, then you are a casual player. That is not something that can be up for discussion. Casual is not synonymous with certain content in the game. It’s just how you play the game.
If I am, it’s only because of the definition you’ve set for casual. I’m only adhering to your logic which seems to be falling apart the more you add things to what it is that you’re saying.
I won’t humor this topic any longer, though. I think I’ve made my point pretty clear here and don’t want to end up repeating myself a multitude of times, but to reiterate once more:
You said casual is only a metric of time. At no point did you say that you had to engage with certain facets of the game to be considered casual. Therefore, solo players can be casual players.