In it's heyday Sony's game division was lucky to be 1/5 as profitable as Nintendo is now. Microsoft's is so far in the whole they can't even see sunlight.
The only reason why Nintendo is super profitable now is that they successfully tapped into the casual market. (Wii, DS) Its not a fault of MS or Sony's business strategy, its just Nintendo took a chance, tried something new and got lucky. My point is, its not the business strategy or even price that caused Nintendo to win big, its the "control games with movement!".
Appealing to the casual gamers is a business strategy.
Why are people getting worked up that a business is doing something that makes them large quantities of money as opposed to doing something that is quite clearly not making money?
Because they apparantly feel threatened that their hobby got less elitist and cliquey.
The thing is that a lot of the "elitism" comes down to having the temerity to expect good, fun games with well-made hardware. The clique aspect I can live without.
Why are people getting worked up that a business is doing something that makes them large quantities of money as opposed to doing something that is quite clearly not making money?
Because they apparantly feel threatened that their hobby got less elitist and cliquey.
The thing is that a lot of the "elitism" comes down to having the temerity to expect good, fun games with well-made hardware.
And yet those exist on the Wii if you don't expect everything to be full of guns.
I'm not sure how the execs in charge of Sony and MS's game divisions can justify what they've been up to the last 10 years since the whole "bet big money to make big money" strategy has been shown to be entirely without merit.
To be fair, Sony's strategy was was working pretty damn well till the ps3 hit. Also MS seems to be doing ok, and if they hadn't made two major mistakes would be great. (Not owning the tech in oxbox, and RROD on the 360)
In it's heyday Sony's game division was lucky to be 1/5 as profitable as Nintendo is now. Microsoft's is so far in the whole they can't even see sunlight.
Also the only reason the 360 is a partial success is that Sony tried to use the PS3 to for BR to victory over HD-DVD. Otherwise they'd be in far, far worse shape.
The only reason the 360 is a partial success is because their strategy for the console was better than a competitor's.
Correct. Man that is such a cheap way to achieve any kind of success, to do a better job than someone else.
Also, I would suggest that as for the current casual section of the customers, Nintendo didn't tap into it, they basically created it.
Eh, the PS2 appealed to the casual section pretty well with Singstar, the eyetoy, and similar stuff, but they never seemed to put two and two together and realize that market is so much larger than the "hardcore" (I'm using that in the sense of the typical young male technology friendly person who likes to watch Family Guy and the like) market is even if you take into account the fact that they buy less game.
Why are people getting worked up that a business is doing something that makes them large quantities of money as opposed to doing something that is quite clearly not making money?
Because they apparantly feel threatened that their hobby got less elitist and cliquey.
Didn't we determine something about how the casual market was bad and we needed to spend more time trying to court the 'intermediate' market? Or something? Yeah... Poor Nintendo... They totally fucked up this generation.
How so? As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo hasn't made video games or consoles since like 1998. Doesn't stop me from playing and enjoying video games today.
Why does it matter who's buying Wiis?
It was a joke based on that poorly written diatribe a few pages back that resulted in the current thread title.
Why are people getting worked up that a business is doing something that makes them large quantities of money as opposed to doing something that is quite clearly not making money?
Because they apparantly feel threatened that their hobby got less elitist and cliquey.
The thing is that a lot of the "elitism" comes down to having the temerity to expect good, fun games with well-made hardware.
And yet those exist on the Wii if you don't expect everything to be full of guns.
Nothing proves how non-elitist and un-cliquey Wii owners are by stereotyping anyone not enraptured with the Wii's game line-up as a gun-crazed retard with horrible taste in games.
Fun fact - every PS3 and 360 game is, despite the packaging, actually a port of Redneck Rampage.
Interactive games company will join Microsoft Game Studios.
REDMOND, Wash., May 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Microsoft Corp. today announced its intent to acquire BigPark Inc., an interactive online gaming company based in Vancouver, British Columbia.
BigPark was founded in 2007 by a group of industry veterans who led the creation and growth of two hugely successful software companies, Distinctive Software Inc. and Electronic Arts Canada. BigPark's founding team is composed of business leaders with over 80 years of collective experience in the video game industry, having produced or overseen blockbuster franchises including "Need for Speed," "FIFA Soccer," "NBA Street" and "SSX."
The acquisition will bring BigPark's talented developers into Microsoft Game Studios, where the team will continue development on an exclusive Xbox 360 game. Over the past year, Microsoft and BigPark have worked closely on this project, providing Microsoft with a clear view into the caliber of talent and innovation at BigPark.
"We are delighted by the opportunity to welcome the BigPark team into Microsoft Game Studios," said Phil Spencer, general manager, Microsoft Game Studios. "The team is composed of some of the most experienced and creative minds working in the industry today. The combination of the BigPark and Microsoft Game Studios talent pools will be an accelerant for growth and innovation. We believe BigPark has tremendous potential to create new properties and innovative gaming experiences for our platforms, one of which we're looking forward to showcasing at the E3 Expo in June."
BigPark CEO and co-founder Hanno Lemke, who will report to Spencer post-acquisition, formerly served in executive and development positions with Electronic Arts and Distinctive Software Inc., where he produced or oversaw hit games such as "NHL Hockey," "Need for Speed" and "Skate."
"Given our shared passion for breaking new ground in the online space and producing best-in-class gaming experiences, our partnership with Microsoft over the last year has been a natural fit, which we've thoroughly enjoyed," Lemke said.
"This opportunity provides us with access to the unparalleled talent, resources and exciting innovation taking place within Microsoft," said Wil Mozell, studio president and co-founder of BigPark. "We're looking forward to being part of the Microsoft Game Studios team, where we believe we can successfully contribute to shaping key Microsoft initiatives through fresh and engaging consumer experiences."
BigPark was founded by Wil Mozell, Erik Kiss, Hanno Lemke and Don Mattrick before Mattrick assumed the role of senior vice president of the Interactive Entertainment Business at Microsoft. Mattrick's role as an investor in BigPark was fully disclosed to Microsoft before he joined the company, and his ongoing involvement as chairman of BigPark was approved pursuant to the Microsoft Standards of Business Conduct.
The casual market has been around since videogames were invented.
The problem is that the casual game players were sloughed off over the generations as things got progressively more complex and less intuitive and less approachable.
That's not to say that casual gamers or the market disappeared. It was always there, it's just that what was left of it adopted to the industry as it went. And so we had a huge casual audience that was highly interested in the few sports games, the occasional action game, the karaoke games, the ddr types, the music games, etc etc. Nintendo's been trying to captivate the casual market for quite some time now. Just look at the gamecube; think they made it small an colorful and tried to cut down on the buttons and change the layout because they wanted to bring in more "hardcore gamers?" They tried ot make it approachable to as many people as possible. But it didn't work quite as well as they'd hope. They manage to maintain a lot of casual gamers through their platformers, Mario Kart, and Smash and so forth of course, as well as the "core" Nintendo fans (metroid fans for example).
But it took a hell of a lot more than that to break out past the "adapted" casual market and back into the broad casual market. It took redefining the image of their console well beyond what the gamecube did, and also by not "giving in" to pressure to make their system capable of up or downporting from the two competitors (this had an interesting side effect though as we all know). They had to completely change the market image and divorce the new console from what would otherwise just be seen as any other. And they did.
And now the casual market that's always been there is now being marketed properly to, rather than focusing only on adapted or incidental casual gamers..
Hmmm, the risks of chasing after the types of people that care about HD graphics are far far higher. That's why Nintendo's business is simply better: the best case and worst case scenario are both better.
What I meant was if nobody gave a shit about the Wii, its design or its price, Nintendo would possibly have been stuck in third place again and looking to the next gen for some other new ideas.
And now the casual market that's always been there is now being marketed properly to, rather than focusing only on adapted or incidental casual gamers..
Marketed properly to by a console manufacturer, you mean, since PC game developers have been marketing to the stereotypical "casual gamer" demographic for a long time now.
And now the casual market that's always been there is now being marketed properly to, rather than focusing only on adapted or incidental casual gamers..
Marketed properly to by a console manufacturer, you mean, since PC game developers have been marketing to the stereotypical "casual gamer" demographic for a long time now.
I still find this funny considering how smug hardcore PC gamers used to be (still are?) about console gamers.
The Wii was absolutely a risk. It asks people to literally redefine how they play video games. It could have been that "waggle lol" was the position of everyone, not just the more closed-minded hardcore. But, it wasn't.
But the thing to remember is that, apparently, Nintendo decided that putting out the same old console would have been an even bigger risk. The Gamecube did nothing to win back Nintendo's marketshare despite it being disk-based, and since it was the worst-finishing big name two generations in a row (other than Sega, which threw in the towel entirely) developers were losing their enthusiasm for making games for Nintendo rapidly. Clearly, doing the same old thing wasn't going to work for them.
Also remember that even Nintendo was surprised by the success of the Wii, given that they didn't really crank up the console's production levels up from "normal" levels until well after it was established the Wii sold not only well, but consistently. (And even then it just bumped up production gradually, see also "Nintendo's obsessive about controlling costs.")
Why are people getting worked up that a business is doing something that makes them large quantities of money as opposed to doing something that is quite clearly not making money?
Because they apparantly feel threatened that their hobby got less elitist and cliquey.
Didn't we determine something about how the casual market was bad and we needed to spend more time trying to court the 'intermediate' market? Or something? Yeah... Poor Nintendo... They totally fucked up this generation.
How so? As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo hasn't made video games or consoles since like 1998. Doesn't stop me from playing and enjoying video games today.
Why does it matter who's buying Wiis?
It was a joke based on that poorly written diatribe a few pages back that resulted in the current thread title.
Ah, I missed it.
While the Wii does not appeal to my tastes, and I would never buy one, I find the hatred against it to be completely misplaced. Sure, it doesn't have games about generic space marines with chainsaw guns or space-jeeps, but there's plenty of those on other consoles. Its not like those are going away.
Hmmm, the risks of chasing after the types of people that care about HD graphics are far far higher. That's why Nintendo's business is simply better: the best case and worst case scenario are both better.
What I meant was if nobody gave a shit about the Wii, its design or its price, Nintendo would possibly have been stuck in third place again and looking to the next gen for some other new ideas.
That's true. And the fact that the N64 and GC sold like they did probably pushed Nintendo into their current strategy.
But my point is that 3rd place for them is a million times better for Nintendo than 3rd place for MS or Sony while 1st place for Nintendo is about 5x better for Nintendo than for Sony.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Sure, it doesn't have games about generic space marines with chainsaw guns or space-jeeps, but there's plenty of those on other consoles. Its not like those are going away.
No, but it has one game featuring a man with a retractable chainsaw arm!
Hmmm, the risks of chasing after the types of people that care about HD graphics are far far higher. That's why Nintendo's business is simply better: the best case and worst case scenario are both better.
What I meant was if nobody gave a shit about the Wii, its design or its price, Nintendo would possibly have been stuck in third place again and looking to the next gen for some other new ideas.
That's true. And the fact that the N64 and GC sold like they did probably pushed Nintendo into their current strategy.
But my point is that 3rd place for them is a million times better for Nintendo than 3rd place for MS or Sony while 1st place for Nintendo is about 5x better for Nintendo than for Sony.
Gamers loved the N64, its problems were the obvious: super expensive games, and only 2 games for the first like year, and never many games total. Playstation meanwhile became the new NES with its huge ass library of games that didn't cost 70 bucks each.
GC, well, who knows, I ignored it like nearly everyone else.
And now the casual market that's always been there is now being marketed properly to, rather than focusing only on adapted or incidental casual gamers..
Marketed properly to by a console manufacturer, you mean, since PC game developers have been marketing to the stereotypical "casual gamer" demographic for a long time now.
Yes, actually, that's precisely what I meant.
(I was referring to the console market)
I was going to put in a paragraph about the PC market and how huge that arena has been for casual gaming for so long but I figured it went without saying.
And now the casual market that's always been there is now being marketed properly to, rather than focusing only on adapted or incidental casual gamers..
Marketed properly to by a console manufacturer, you mean, since PC game developers have been marketing to the stereotypical "casual gamer" demographic for a long time now.
I still find this funny considering how smug hardcore PC gamers used to be (still are?) about console gamers.
PC gamers still are smug. PC has access to multiple massive hubs of quality casual games - all available for free. PC also has access to the most hardcore of the hardcore games. Amazingly enough, it even has access to most "casual hardcore games".
And just so we don't get into a semantics bickering piss fest, I consider games like Bejweled to be casual, games like Halo 3 or Gears of War to be "casual hardcore", and games like X3: Reunion, Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, and Civilization 4 to be hardcore.
The PC also has the ability to turn some "casual hardcore" games, like Fallout 3, into true hardcore game thanks to a nearly infinite selection of mods.
Rooks and I have gone at this a lot in the past but my take is that "investing" in the games industry is a bad strategy. The landscape changes too fast so you are in effect building on sand.
I don't want to get into a huge argument over this yet again, since it's been done so many times before. But I do think you've boiled our disagreement down to that one point. While you think that "investing" in the games industry is a bad idea, I absolutely think the opposite.
We all know how popular, addictive, and "sticky" games are. They are especially important for platforms (and MS, being a software company, is largely in the platform-building business). What's the #1 played app in the world? Solitaire. In many portals, such as MSN and Yahoo!, do you know what areas are often the most popular and the biggest time sink? Its the games areas. One reason why PCs are far more popular than Macs still? Far more games available! And as we're seeing with the iPhone and Facebook, games are some of the most popular apps on those services.
Nowadays, it's far more than merely "Do I make money selling games and systems?". There are many new business models that have opened up, such as advertising, subscription, and micro-transactions. So it's no wonder that traditionally technology-only companies such as MS, Google, and Apple are wanting to get involved in this business where they can not only make money on the games/hardware themselves, but drive people also to the platforms that they build and profit off of as well.
I do agree that the landscape does change very fast. No one is saying that the games industry is easy. Certainly there are more stable businesses one can be in, but I would argue that they're far less exciting. And frankly, the games industry continues to grow and outpace many others.
So absolutely I think "investing" in games is a smart thing to do.
But my point is that 3rd place for them is a million times better for Nintendo than 3rd place for MS or Sony while 1st place for Nintendo is about 5x better for Nintendo than for Sony.
Now of course not all PC gamers are smug; but there is often a very outspoken minority that makes it seem that way. Especially when people start talking either about graphics or about input devices or about online multiplayer or about absurdly niche genres.
Video game manufacturers and publishers don't exactly hide information about their future projects. The video game industry isn't one with a high degree of information dissymmetry. I wouldn't recommend investing in it either, unless you're a highly trained and highly experienced investor.
And now the casual market that's always been there is now being marketed properly to, rather than focusing only on adapted or incidental casual gamers..
Marketed properly to by a console manufacturer, you mean, since PC game developers have been marketing to the stereotypical "casual gamer" demographic for a long time now.
Yes, actually, that's precisely what I meant.
(I was referring to the console market)
I was going to put in a paragraph about the PC market and how huge that arena has been for casual gaming for so long but I figured it went without saying.
While Microsoft hasn't gone all-in on the "casual gamer" demographic like Nintendo has, they do seem to be trying to include that demographic in with the overall marketing scheme of the 360, between the Arcade Pack and the preponderance of "casual games" on XBLA.
I also recall that the marketing for both the original Xbox and the PS2 took a swing at marketing towards the "casual gamer" demo towards the end of last generation.
Hmmm, the risks of chasing after the types of people that care about HD graphics are far far higher. That's why Nintendo's business is simply better: the best case and worst case scenario are both better.
What I meant was if nobody gave a shit about the Wii, its design or its price, Nintendo would possibly have been stuck in third place again and looking to the next gen for some other new ideas.
That's true. And the fact that the N64 and GC sold like they did probably pushed Nintendo into their current strategy.
But my point is that 3rd place for them is a million times better for Nintendo than 3rd place for MS or Sony while 1st place for Nintendo is about 5x better for Nintendo than for Sony.
Oh yeah, I certainly don't deny that. But, nominally, the GCN was a failure. At least in terms of marketshare. If your system isn't selling in large enough quantities (or in the GCN's case, a few poorly chosen design features), then the game makers won't be willing to make or port titles to it. Profitability is a nice thing to have, but a company should be trying to aim for at least a little more than that.
If anything, the Wii engenders it's own problems in that it's not as easy to make a truly cross-platform title in this generation. It's not a good or bad thing per se, but it is forcing some devs to rethink their design philosophy. In the meanwhile, the Wii gets too much shovelware and the HD systems cost too much to develop for. Or so the meme say.
Sure, it doesn't have games about generic space marines with chainsaw guns or space-jeeps, but there's plenty of those on other consoles. Its not like those are going away.
No, but it has one game featuring a man with a retractable chainsaw arm!
:P
Is that the new "mature gamers" game where you run around massacring people with chainsaws? :P
I won't complain about the Wii until the type of games I enjoy stop getting made in favour of Carnival Games XII and PetZ: Wallabies. The genres I enjoy have been dying for far longer than the Wii has been around, anyway.
While Microsoft hasn't gone all-in on the "casual gamer" demographic like Nintendo has, they do seem to be trying to include that demographic in with the overall marketing scheme of the 360, between the Arcade Pack and the preponderance of "casual games" on XBLA.
Yes, they're trying to (I applaud 'em for it personally). But I'd say by and large this, at best, succeeds still only at pulling in the adapted casual market. It'll pull in casual gamers that have over time adapted to the changes in the industry.
The Arcade is not bringing in the broader casual gaming audience that still finds the "Xbox" not approachable or not intuitive, at least in their mindshare of the market.
But my point is that 3rd place for them is a million times better for Nintendo than 3rd place for MS or Sony while 1st place for Nintendo is about 5x better for Nintendo than for Sony.
What the hell does this even mean?
Well when they were in 3rd place Nintendo made a profit while MS and Sony can't avoid losing billions of dollars if they don't manage to dominate the industry. Meanwhile Sony's profits reach about 1 billion per year at their peak. Nintendo's are 5 time that now.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
And now the casual market that's always been there is now being marketed properly to, rather than focusing only on adapted or incidental casual gamers..
Marketed properly to by a console manufacturer, you mean, since PC game developers have been marketing to the stereotypical "casual gamer" demographic for a long time now.
Yes, actually, that's precisely what I meant.
(I was referring to the console market)
I was going to put in a paragraph about the PC market and how huge that arena has been for casual gaming for so long but I figured it went without saying.
While Microsoft hasn't gone all-in on the "casual gamer" demographic like Nintendo has, they do seem to be trying to include that demographic in with the overall marketing scheme of the 360, between the Arcade Pack and the preponderance of "casual games" on XBLA.
I'll have to disagree to an extent. Microsoft pushed the new Banjo and Viva Pinata games pretty hard, bankrolled Lips, and bundled their system with Kung Fu Panda and Lego Indiana Jones. It's been a pretty big push, if not "all-in." And how successful that push has been is a different matter.
Anyway, interesting to note that Microsoft just purchased a gaming company, considering their strategy for the last few years has been to divest themselves of gaming divisions, to the point of hitting bone. Maybe the company realized they went too far? Or maybe they're trying to get rid of sub-companies that don't fit their future vision and replace them with ones that do.
Going from Gamecube to Wii is "all in." Going from Xbox to re-market-imaging and bundling Xbox is not going "all in," even though it's an admirable and expensive effort.
So... what, they should continue not being competitive because it's good enough?
No business succeeds by stopping once they're "making enough money". They keep pushing.
You haven't been reading the last few pages of the thread, have you?
Nintendo is obsessive about controlling costs, and so they tend to make money even when their systems are selling like crap. They're also pulling in more profit from the Wii than the PS2 did at its peak, since Sony isn't nearly as good at controlling costs. Not to mention the PS3 is losing money hand over fist despite selling decently in the grand scheme of things.
While Microsoft hasn't gone all-in on the "casual gamer" demographic like Nintendo has, they do seem to be trying to include that demographic in with the overall marketing scheme of the 360, between the Arcade Pack and the preponderance of "casual games" on XBLA.
Yes, they're trying to (I applaud 'em for it personally). But I'd say by and large this, at best, succeeds still only at pulling in the adapted casual market. It'll pull in casual gamers that have over time adapted to the changes in the industry.
The Arcade is not bringing in the broader casual gaming audience that still finds the "Xbox" not approachable or not intuitive, at least in their mindshare of the market.
I'm in the camp that thinks the big issue here is the controllers, in particular the fact that a controller good for one demographic is off putting to the other. It will be much more interesting to find out what kind of controllers the next gen consoles will be using than what kind of GPU.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
So... what, they should continue not being competitive because it's good enough?
No business succeeds by stopping once they're "making enough money". They keep pushing.
You haven't been reading the last few pages of the thread, have you?
Nintendo is obsessive about controlling costs, and so they tend to make money even when their systems are selling like crap. They're also pulling in more profit from the Wii than the PS2 did at its peak, since Sony isn't nearly as good at controlling costs. Not to mention the PS3 is losing money hand over fist despite selling decently in the grand scheme of things.
I understand that; the way he worded it seemed to imply that this was somehow bad that they're pushing forward.
While Microsoft hasn't gone all-in on the "casual gamer" demographic like Nintendo has, they do seem to be trying to include that demographic in with the overall marketing scheme of the 360, between the Arcade Pack and the preponderance of "casual games" on XBLA.
Yes, they're trying to (I applaud 'em for it personally). But I'd say by and large this, at best, succeeds still only at pulling in the adapted casual market. It'll pull in casual gamers that have over time adapted to the changes in the industry.
The Arcade is not bringing in the broader casual gaming audience that still finds the "Xbox" not approachable or not intuitive, at least in their mindshare of the market.
I'm in the camp that thinks the big issue here is the controllers, in particular the fact that a controller good for one demographic is off putting to the other. It will be much more interesting to find out what kind of controllers the next gen consoles will be using than what kind of GPU.
This.
This right here. The number one reason I have no interest in a Wii is the remote. I simply don't want to interact with my games in this manner. I'm certainly concerned that the next gen will swing too far in the Wii direction.
I'm in the camp that thinks the big issue here is the controllers, in particular the fact that a controller good for one demographic is off putting to the other. It will be much more interesting to find out what kind of controllers the next gen consoles will be using than what kind of GPU.
It goes beyond controllers.
They had to totally revamp the entire image they presented with their new machine to the market and completely divorce it from then-current conceptions of a "video game machine."
The controller was an enormous factor, yes. But so was the name and design of the system and the marketing efforts as well as the development direction and decision to include Wii Sports with the thing.
I mean they really had to turn things upside down from what we all normally "expected" of a next-generation console from a gaming company. They turned around our expecations on input, our expectations on design, our expectations on name, our expectations on power, our expectations on a pack-in launch title, our expectations of marketing direction, our expectations of nearly everything.
Because.. well, the industry had been moving in this direction for so many years, we kind of "forgot" about what made games really appeal to a broad audience. It's approachability and intuitiveness and cost and not trying to put on this face of only being for technophiles.
Going from Gamecube to Wii is "all in." Going from Xbox to re-market-imaging and bundling Xbox is not going "all in," even though it's an admirable and expensive effort.
I would agree with this. Arguably MS and Sony shouldn't be going "all in" anyway, since that presumes abandoning the hardcore audiences they've established. (I guess it depends on what you mean by "all in"). While it's certainly smaller than the casual userbase the Wii has obtained, it's certainly not trivial. A good business can, and is, being made off that market.
But yes, MS is obviously making some plays in "going casual". We've already seen this already. We can see Nintendo trying to do the opposite as well, with more "core-centric" games appearing on their platforms.
Posts
Appealing to the casual gamers is a business strategy.
The thing is that a lot of the "elitism" comes down to having the temerity to expect good, fun games with well-made hardware. The clique aspect I can live without.
Nintendo created the current "casual gaming" demographic?
I guess all those people playing The Sims or Bejeweled or Diner Dash were "hardcore gamers" or something.
Bejeweled would like to have a word with you.
What they managed to do is make a handheld and a console that wouldn't scare that market away.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
The only reason the 360 is a partial success is because their strategy for the console was better than a competitor's.
Correct. Man that is such a cheap way to achieve any kind of success, to do a better job than someone else.
Eh, the PS2 appealed to the casual section pretty well with Singstar, the eyetoy, and similar stuff, but they never seemed to put two and two together and realize that market is so much larger than the "hardcore" (I'm using that in the sense of the typical young male technology friendly person who likes to watch Family Guy and the like) market is even if you take into account the fact that they buy less game.
It was a joke based on that poorly written diatribe a few pages back that resulted in the current thread title.
Nothing proves how non-elitist and un-cliquey Wii owners are by stereotyping anyone not enraptured with the Wii's game line-up as a gun-crazed retard with horrible taste in games.
Fun fact - every PS3 and 360 game is, despite the packaging, actually a port of Redneck Rampage.
The problem is that the casual game players were sloughed off over the generations as things got progressively more complex and less intuitive and less approachable.
That's not to say that casual gamers or the market disappeared. It was always there, it's just that what was left of it adopted to the industry as it went. And so we had a huge casual audience that was highly interested in the few sports games, the occasional action game, the karaoke games, the ddr types, the music games, etc etc. Nintendo's been trying to captivate the casual market for quite some time now. Just look at the gamecube; think they made it small an colorful and tried to cut down on the buttons and change the layout because they wanted to bring in more "hardcore gamers?" They tried ot make it approachable to as many people as possible. But it didn't work quite as well as they'd hope. They manage to maintain a lot of casual gamers through their platformers, Mario Kart, and Smash and so forth of course, as well as the "core" Nintendo fans (metroid fans for example).
But it took a hell of a lot more than that to break out past the "adapted" casual market and back into the broad casual market. It took redefining the image of their console well beyond what the gamecube did, and also by not "giving in" to pressure to make their system capable of up or downporting from the two competitors (this had an interesting side effect though as we all know). They had to completely change the market image and divorce the new console from what would otherwise just be seen as any other. And they did.
And now the casual market that's always been there is now being marketed properly to, rather than focusing only on adapted or incidental casual gamers..
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Marketed properly to by a console manufacturer, you mean, since PC game developers have been marketing to the stereotypical "casual gamer" demographic for a long time now.
I still find this funny considering how smug hardcore PC gamers used to be (still are?) about console gamers.
But the thing to remember is that, apparently, Nintendo decided that putting out the same old console would have been an even bigger risk. The Gamecube did nothing to win back Nintendo's marketshare despite it being disk-based, and since it was the worst-finishing big name two generations in a row (other than Sega, which threw in the towel entirely) developers were losing their enthusiasm for making games for Nintendo rapidly. Clearly, doing the same old thing wasn't going to work for them.
Also remember that even Nintendo was surprised by the success of the Wii, given that they didn't really crank up the console's production levels up from "normal" levels until well after it was established the Wii sold not only well, but consistently. (And even then it just bumped up production gradually, see also "Nintendo's obsessive about controlling costs.")
Ah, I missed it.
While the Wii does not appeal to my tastes, and I would never buy one, I find the hatred against it to be completely misplaced. Sure, it doesn't have games about generic space marines with chainsaw guns or space-jeeps, but there's plenty of those on other consoles. Its not like those are going away.
That's true. And the fact that the N64 and GC sold like they did probably pushed Nintendo into their current strategy.
But my point is that 3rd place for them is a million times better for Nintendo than 3rd place for MS or Sony while 1st place for Nintendo is about 5x better for Nintendo than for Sony.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
No, but it has one game featuring a man with a retractable chainsaw arm!
:P
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Gamers loved the N64, its problems were the obvious: super expensive games, and only 2 games for the first like year, and never many games total. Playstation meanwhile became the new NES with its huge ass library of games that didn't cost 70 bucks each.
GC, well, who knows, I ignored it like nearly everyone else.
Yes, actually, that's precisely what I meant.
(I was referring to the console market)
I was going to put in a paragraph about the PC market and how huge that arena has been for casual gaming for so long but I figured it went without saying.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
PC gamers still are smug. PC has access to multiple massive hubs of quality casual games - all available for free. PC also has access to the most hardcore of the hardcore games. Amazingly enough, it even has access to most "casual hardcore games".
And just so we don't get into a semantics bickering piss fest, I consider games like Bejweled to be casual, games like Halo 3 or Gears of War to be "casual hardcore", and games like X3: Reunion, Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, and Civilization 4 to be hardcore.
The PC also has the ability to turn some "casual hardcore" games, like Fallout 3, into true hardcore game thanks to a nearly infinite selection of mods.
I don't want to get into a huge argument over this yet again, since it's been done so many times before. But I do think you've boiled our disagreement down to that one point. While you think that "investing" in the games industry is a bad idea, I absolutely think the opposite.
We all know how popular, addictive, and "sticky" games are. They are especially important for platforms (and MS, being a software company, is largely in the platform-building business). What's the #1 played app in the world? Solitaire. In many portals, such as MSN and Yahoo!, do you know what areas are often the most popular and the biggest time sink? Its the games areas. One reason why PCs are far more popular than Macs still? Far more games available! And as we're seeing with the iPhone and Facebook, games are some of the most popular apps on those services.
Nowadays, it's far more than merely "Do I make money selling games and systems?". There are many new business models that have opened up, such as advertising, subscription, and micro-transactions. So it's no wonder that traditionally technology-only companies such as MS, Google, and Apple are wanting to get involved in this business where they can not only make money on the games/hardware themselves, but drive people also to the platforms that they build and profit off of as well.
I do agree that the landscape does change very fast. No one is saying that the games industry is easy. Certainly there are more stable businesses one can be in, but I would argue that they're far less exciting. And frankly, the games industry continues to grow and outpace many others.
So absolutely I think "investing" in games is a smart thing to do.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
What the hell does this even mean?
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
While Microsoft hasn't gone all-in on the "casual gamer" demographic like Nintendo has, they do seem to be trying to include that demographic in with the overall marketing scheme of the 360, between the Arcade Pack and the preponderance of "casual games" on XBLA.
I also recall that the marketing for both the original Xbox and the PS2 took a swing at marketing towards the "casual gamer" demo towards the end of last generation.
Oh yeah, I certainly don't deny that. But, nominally, the GCN was a failure. At least in terms of marketshare. If your system isn't selling in large enough quantities (or in the GCN's case, a few poorly chosen design features), then the game makers won't be willing to make or port titles to it. Profitability is a nice thing to have, but a company should be trying to aim for at least a little more than that.
If anything, the Wii engenders it's own problems in that it's not as easy to make a truly cross-platform title in this generation. It's not a good or bad thing per se, but it is forcing some devs to rethink their design philosophy. In the meanwhile, the Wii gets too much shovelware and the HD systems cost too much to develop for. Or so the meme say.
Is that the new "mature gamers" game where you run around massacring people with chainsaws? :P
I won't complain about the Wii until the type of games I enjoy stop getting made in favour of Carnival Games XII and PetZ: Wallabies. The genres I enjoy have been dying for far longer than the Wii has been around, anyway.
Yes, they're trying to (I applaud 'em for it personally). But I'd say by and large this, at best, succeeds still only at pulling in the adapted casual market. It'll pull in casual gamers that have over time adapted to the changes in the industry.
The Arcade is not bringing in the broader casual gaming audience that still finds the "Xbox" not approachable or not intuitive, at least in their mindshare of the market.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Well when they were in 3rd place Nintendo made a profit while MS and Sony can't avoid losing billions of dollars if they don't manage to dominate the industry. Meanwhile Sony's profits reach about 1 billion per year at their peak. Nintendo's are 5 time that now.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I'll have to disagree to an extent. Microsoft pushed the new Banjo and Viva Pinata games pretty hard, bankrolled Lips, and bundled their system with Kung Fu Panda and Lego Indiana Jones. It's been a pretty big push, if not "all-in." And how successful that push has been is a different matter.
Anyway, interesting to note that Microsoft just purchased a gaming company, considering their strategy for the last few years has been to divest themselves of gaming divisions, to the point of hitting bone. Maybe the company realized they went too far? Or maybe they're trying to get rid of sub-companies that don't fit their future vision and replace them with ones that do.
No business succeeds by stopping once they're "making enough money". They keep pushing.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
You haven't been reading the last few pages of the thread, have you?
Nintendo is obsessive about controlling costs, and so they tend to make money even when their systems are selling like crap. They're also pulling in more profit from the Wii than the PS2 did at its peak, since Sony isn't nearly as good at controlling costs. Not to mention the PS3 is losing money hand over fist despite selling decently in the grand scheme of things.
I'm in the camp that thinks the big issue here is the controllers, in particular the fact that a controller good for one demographic is off putting to the other. It will be much more interesting to find out what kind of controllers the next gen consoles will be using than what kind of GPU.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I understand that; the way he worded it seemed to imply that this was somehow bad that they're pushing forward.
This.
This right here. The number one reason I have no interest in a Wii is the remote. I simply don't want to interact with my games in this manner. I'm certainly concerned that the next gen will swing too far in the Wii direction.
It goes beyond controllers.
They had to totally revamp the entire image they presented with their new machine to the market and completely divorce it from then-current conceptions of a "video game machine."
The controller was an enormous factor, yes. But so was the name and design of the system and the marketing efforts as well as the development direction and decision to include Wii Sports with the thing.
I mean they really had to turn things upside down from what we all normally "expected" of a next-generation console from a gaming company. They turned around our expecations on input, our expectations on design, our expectations on name, our expectations on power, our expectations on a pack-in launch title, our expectations of marketing direction, our expectations of nearly everything.
Because.. well, the industry had been moving in this direction for so many years, we kind of "forgot" about what made games really appeal to a broad audience. It's approachability and intuitiveness and cost and not trying to put on this face of only being for technophiles.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
I would agree with this. Arguably MS and Sony shouldn't be going "all in" anyway, since that presumes abandoning the hardcore audiences they've established. (I guess it depends on what you mean by "all in"). While it's certainly smaller than the casual userbase the Wii has obtained, it's certainly not trivial. A good business can, and is, being made off that market.
But yes, MS is obviously making some plays in "going casual". We've already seen this already. We can see Nintendo trying to do the opposite as well, with more "core-centric" games appearing on their platforms.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com