Article: Sony and MS Can Ignore Nintendo

[MR EPIC]

Sony And MS Can Ignore Nintendo

So there are these two basketball teams going at it on the blacktop; at first, one team just continues to throw down rim-rattling dunks and continues to dominate. It's like the Globetrotters goin' nuts. Then, the other team starts to recruit some star players, and now, the once-trod-upon team is rapidly making a comeback and cutting into the lead. Now, across the way, there's a baseball team practicing; no game going on, just a practice. They've already won a championship, and they're just breezin' along with an easy workout.

In this scenario, if you couldn't already guess, the Xbox 360 is the first b-ball team, the PS3 is the comeback competitor, and the baseball stars represent the Wii. The point is obvious: the PS3 and 360 will continue to do battle for quite some time while the Wii won't even factor in because, contrary to popular fanboy belief, the Wii is not a direct competitor. Why? The PS3 and 360 caters to gamers while the Wii caters to non-gamers; the families, the gadget-lovers, the trend-followers, etc. All one has to do is check the marketing campaigns for all three interested parties, and that should be more than enough evidence. The Wii commercials so far have featured senior citizens bowling, parents and children playing together, two adult women wandering around in Animal Crossing, dozens of people in the background trying out the new Wii instruments, and the like. All of this indicates one common focus. It's the worldwide appeal of something accessible, and there's nothing wrong with that, but...

In any Wii commercial you have ever seen, would you ever locate someone you would perceive as a "gamer?" Honestly? Furthermore, it's painfully obvious Nintendo isn't interested in producing impressive software; it's all about the gimmick and always has been. Just look at 2008. Of the top 25 titles of the year, how many are on the Wii? 1? 2? Any? Or perhaps the better question is, will any Wii titles be considered for Game of the Year against the likes of MGS4, GTAIV, Gears of War 2, Fallout 3, Dead Space, LittleBigPlanet, etc.? The Wii defenders will instantly play the "yeah, we like to have fun" card, which of course implies that those who prefer the PS3 and 360 aren't having fun. ...yes, that's a water-tight argument there. You Wii lovers certainly can't hide behind a tower of top-notch software; it's basically all on the PS3 and 360, so that's a waste of time. The titles that push the envelope and make this generation what it is aren't possible on the Wii.

And that's because the Wii kinda operates in a weird parallel universe outside the gaming industry. Yes, they're video games...um...kinda. They're appreciated so long as the gimmick is appreciated. Look, I will forever applaud Nintendo for going a different direction in this new generation and deciding not to challenge Sony and Microsoft; they simply targeted a demographic that - as far as I can tell - is the exact opposite demographic that would buy the PS3 and/or 360. While I'm aware it's purely anecdotal evidence, let me just say that everyone I know who owns a Wii most certainly isn't a gamer, and would never own either the PS3 or 360. They saw the commercials and thought it'd be a cool electronic toy for themselves or the kids; the last video game they played was Pac-Man. What, with the trillions of Wiis around the world, do you really, truly, honestly believe we're talking about the sudden explosion of gamers? Or, and I'm just tossing this out there, we're talking about everyone else...?

I hold nothing against Nintendo, nor do I care if you're a Wii fan. If you're having fun, great. It's all entertainment, but no logical human can ever say that the PS3 and 360 are in direct competition with the Wii. Totally different target audience, and a totally different method of delivering entertainment. One is a video game, the other is more like one of those old Tiger handhelds brought to life in your hands with a fancy peripheral. The point is, Sony and MS should just focus on themselves and each other, as should those who follow the industry. And I'll tell you this- the more we move through this generation, the more my theory will become accepted...the more everyone will start to recognize the distinct difference between the PS3/360 and the Wii.

I liked this article not because it brings up an all too familiar topic but because the writer focuses on Nintendo not really even fighting the same console war as MS and Sony. I believe that even Nintendo themselves have said as much in the past, but fans and haters alike still tend to make the mistake of clumping the three companies together as if they were in the same market. I know I've personally done it in the past because I've always wanted to see Nintendo back on top. But now that they're back in the spotlight we need to ask ourselves what is it they're really back on top of? What do you who've read the article think about the topic?

[cubeenigma]

well you could take this in the way that they can now focus on fighting for second place...

;)

[Darc Requiem]

The article doesn't see the forest for the trees. Living and profiting off a hardcore fanbase can been done, but its difficult and basically Nintendo is the only one that has managed to pull it off. Sega never really made any money and had to pull out of the hardware market. The X-box lost billions and if it were produced by stand a lone company and not MS they would have went out of business as well. Sony is teetering on the brink because the market that bankrolled their success is playing gimmicky not quite video games.

The Wii isn't in competition with the 360 and PS3. Not because its not a game console but because it's so far ahead of them the race for this generation is over. The truth of the matter is the 360 and PS3 have no choice but to compete for runner up.

The article came off as "moving the goalposts." When the Wii was announced industry at large thought it was going to "get killed" by the 360 and PS3. It reminds of the DS/PSP battle all over again. Let's flip the situation. If the Wii was dead last and the PS3 and 360 were fighting for first, would anyone by this brand of logic? "The Wii isn't competing, its going for new market. It doesn't matter that it's last." We all know that no one would buy that. So why this logic fit the current reality of the situation.

Every time I see an article like this, it always misses the biggest point. There are only one set of third party developers. Not only that, go into your local retailers. Look at the shelf space. Think back to when the Wii and PS3 launched. Now who has lost shelf space and who has gained it?

[Sascha-AMN]

Epic: Source the article (URL).

Darc: It's true that there's only one set of third-party developers, but who are they really putting their support behind? They're making money off the Wii with inexpensive efforts and putting the real time and effort into the HD consoles that they feel hold a higher concentration of their target market.

[MR EPIC]

The article came off as "moving the goalposts." When the Wii was announced industry at large thought it was going to "get killed" by the 360 and PS3.

It has nothing to do with "moving the goalposts" at all. Nobody knew that the Wii would turn out to be more of a novelty than a game machine. Likewise, nobody knew that the majority of the people who would own/play the system would not be gamers but rather people who care very little about gaming at all. These suggestions could only have been made now, after seeing what each system has become over the past 2-3 years.

Let's just call casual gaming for what it really is: Mainstream. And anybody who's ever cared about any industry knows that the product and the industry as a whole gets severely compromised when it turns mainstream or goes commercial. Was Nintendo the first company to turn gaming mainstream? No, but they're certainly capitalizing on it and if it weren't for Sony and especially MS right now we gamers would be sitting in the middle of a completely altered and watered down hobby right now. If the Wii were a rap artists it would be known as a "sellout", which is a bad thing in other industries so why is it seen as a good thing in this case?

What Sony was able to do with both the PS1 and the PS2 by selling 100 million units each without casting aside the core gamer in the process is something that will never be able to be done again. So video game companies need to forget about that and decide which side of the market they are on, either the core game side or the casual game side. I believe that a console maker should be able to be content with putting out the type of core games that it wants to and be able to make a profit off of the software and eventually the hardware. This quest for the biggest slice of the pie is hurting those who take gaming seriously altering the very thing they love and have been loyal to right in front of their eyes.

[blue rogue]

It always irritates me when I hear people say this:

Furthermore, it's painfully obvious Nintendo isn't interested in producing impressive software; it's all about the gimmick and always has been.

People seem to forget the fact that Nintendo has published Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy, and Zelda: Twilight Princess. They produced these "hardcore" games in rapid succession near the beginning of the Wii's life cycle. And, as Nintendo has stated, these types of games take a long time to make. Of course you're going to see more Wii Sports-like titles come out. They don't nearly take as long to cook in the oven compared to these deeper titles. Does this necessarily mean that Nintendo "isn't interested in producing impressive software"? No, it doesn't. It means that while, yes, they are shifting focus more (although certainly not all) to casual games, that does not mean they are using their resources solely for shallow games.

This quotation is also a little bit strange for me:
The point is, Sony and MS should just focus on themselves and each other, as should those who follow the industry.

Does that make sense from a business perspective? Aren't businesses trying to have their product appeal to the largest number of available consumers? Already you can see that Microsoft is trying to follow in Nintendo's footsteps. They have those new Xbox avatars that are similar to Miis and they are trying to push more casual games like Lips. I don't think Microsoft and Sony can ignore Nintendo at this point. Nintendo has shown what a large audience video games can draw in and Microsoft and Sony have to be looking now.

[Tanooki]

^Yes those quotes you quoted are awful and show a stupid inflected bias. The second one basically says, don't bother supporting the largest cash cow if you're a real game maker and care about/follow the industry. The first one you hit well enough, stupid comment by a slanted writer.

[Sascha-AMN]

It's an editorial. How the hell do you get labeled a 'slanted writer' when the purpose of the article is to espouse an opinion?

[Darc Requiem]

Epic: Source the article (URL).

Darc: It's true that there's only one set of third-party developers, but who are they really putting their support behind? They're making money off the Wii with inexpensive efforts and putting the real time and effort into the HD consoles that they feel hold a higher concentration of their target market.

Which is why 80% of games released tank. You can't ignore the largest part of the market. The casual market has been the larger part of the market since the PS1 took off. You didn't see third parties ignore the Playstation for the more hardcore Sega and Nintendo fans.

It has nothing to do with "moving the goalposts" at all. Nobody knew that the Wii would turn out to be more of a novelty than a game machine. Likewise, nobody knew that the majority of the people who would own/play the system would not be gamers but rather people who care very little about gaming at all. These suggestions could only have been made now, after seeing what each system has become over the past 2-3 years.

Let's just call casual gaming for what it really is: Mainstream. And anybody who's ever cared about any industry knows that the product and the industry as a whole gets severely compromised when it turns mainstream or goes commercial. Was Nintendo the first company to turn gaming mainstream? No, but they're certainly capitalizing on it and if it weren't for Sony and especially MS right now we gamers would be sitting in the middle of a completely altered and watered down hobby right now. If the Wii were a rap artists it would be known as a "sellout", which is a bad thing in other industries so why is it seen as a good thing in this case?

What Sony was able to do with both the PS1 and the PS2 by selling 100 million units each without casting aside the core gamer in the process is something that will never be able to be done again. So video game companies need to forget about that and decide which side of the market they are on, either the core game side or the casual game side. I believe that a console maker should be able to be content with putting out the type of core games that it wants to and be able to make a profit off of the software and eventually the hardware. This quest for the biggest slice of the pie is hurting those who take gaming seriously altering the very thing they love and have been loyal to right in front of their eyes.

Epic what Sony did was no different from what Nintendo is doing now. They had to draw in a new audience because Sega and Nintendo diehards would be slow to accept them. Not only that, as a fan of 2D games, Sony damn sure cast us aside. They did everything they could to discourage 2D game development. The bulk of the gamers that try to marginalize Nintendo either never were fans of the company or became fans of Sony well over a decade ago. You can't abandon a group of gamers that had already left you.

The criticisms of the Wii and Nintendo shift like the wind. At first it is competing, but now its not. It was fad, but after two years of exploding sells that one can't be used anymore. For the longest time, people insisted that Nintendo hadn't expanded the market at all. Now because it continues to sell that isn't questioned any longer either. Just because you don't like what Wii does, does not make it a non competitor. If Sony or MS follow this notion they'll find themselves out of the industry.

[Tanooki]

Sascha I know it's an editorial and opinion based, but I think it's still safe to say that an opinion can be slanted depending on the writers taste. He's going off of feeling instead of reality which is why I made the comment.

[Sascha-AMN]

Which is why 80% of games released tank. You can't ignore the largest part of the market. The casual market has been the larger part of the market since the PS1 took off. You didn't see third parties ignore the Playstation for the more hardcore Sega and Nintendo fans.

Point me to the distinctly casual games on the PSX, those equivalent to the distinctly casual games on the Wii. The best selling games on Playstation were, in order:

Gran Turismo
Final Fantasy VII
Gran Turismo II
Tomb Raider II
Metal Gear Solid
Tomb Raider
Crash Bandicoot
Final Fantasy VIII
Crash Bandicoot 3
Crash Bandicoot 2
Resident Evil 2
Spyro the Dragon
Tekken 3
Dragon Quest VII
Rayman
Resident Evil 3
Spyro 2
Frogger
Parappa the Rapper
Final Fantasy IX
Resident Evil
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2
Driver
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater
Final Fantasy Tactics
WWF War Zone
Everybody's Golf
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
Driver 2
Derby Stallion
Namco Museum Volume 3
Crash Team Racing
Twisted Metal 2
Namco Museum Volume 1
Syphon Filter
A Bug's Life
Spider-Man
Everybody's Golf 2
NFL GameDay '98
Tomb Raider III
Dance Dance Revolution
Spec Ops
Chrono Cross
Cool Boarders 3
Cool Boarders 2
Dragon Warrior IV
Dino Crisis 2
Chocobo no Fushigina Dungeon
Syphon Filter 2
Grand Theft Auto 2
Jet Moto 2
Twisted Metal III
Xenogears
Resident Evil Director's Cut
NFL GameDay '99
Arc the Lad
Beatmania
Crash Bash
Derby Stallion '99
Jet Moto
SaGa Frontier
Devil Dice
Star Ocean: The Second Story
Parasite Eve II
Pac-Man World
Test Drive 5
Twisted Metal
Arc the Lad II
Densha de Go!
Monopoly
Intelligent Qube
Simple 1500 Series Vol. 1: The Mahjong
Street Fighter Alpha 3
Tomorrow Never Dies
Yu-Gi-Oh! Forbidden Memories
Parasite Eve

These are world-wide sales, some accounted for entirely by North America, others entirely by Japan, most a mix of NA, Europe and Japan. I've bolded all the games I think could be argued as 'casual' in the same sense as casual Wii titles. I think you'll find that 3rd parties have been delivering equivalents to those titles to the Wii.

I've said it many times and I'll say it again, you can't compare the 'casual gamer' as it was defined during the PSX era (and to a lesser degree the PS2, although there was definitely a transition happening) and the current 'casual gamer' of the Wii era. If the success of the PSX and PSX games was due to an influx of casual, infrequent gamers (which I agree with), then those gamers were simply drawn towards traditional games that were marketed in a different way and offered different subject matter.

Are you going to argue that Gran Turismo (the deepest racing simulation ever made), Final Fantasy (once considered so dense that westerners pretty much avoided it), Resident Evil (difficult and scary), Tomb Raider (difficult, requires multi-tasking and problem solving), Metal Gear Solid, Tekken, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater and the like were 'casual' games as we define them today, played by the same types of people that buy Wii Fit or Wii Play en masse? The casual gamer of the PSX era was just a gamer that played traditional 'hardcore' games less; car nuts who had never picked up a controller drawn in by the depth of Gran Turismo, consumers attracted by the production value of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear, hell, the average guy that noticed Lara Croft on magazine covers.

The 'casual gamer' as it is now defined by Nintendo is very different, and third party developers are taking that into account as they develop their games.

[RivenWinner]

I agree with the definitions of "casual gamers" during our current generation and the PSX generation, as Sascha delineates in his post above.

I've always felt this distinction to be true, and in many ways, somewhat obvious. Nice post Sascha.

[MR EPIC]

Epic what Sony did was no different from what Nintendo is doing now. They had to draw in a new audience because Sega and Nintendo diehards would be slow to accept them. Not only that, as a fan of 2D games, Sony damn sure cast us aside. They did everything they could to discourage 2D game development.

There is a BIG difference between what Sony did and what Nintendo is doing now. First of all, I wouldn't say that we were "fans" of 2D gaming but rather fans of video games in general. 2D games were all that we had up to that point and 3D was just the natural progression of the industry. And at least what Sony was pushing were more video games. A lot of what makes up the Wii library are mini-games and titles that traditional gamers wouldn't take a second look at. When I owned an N64 and would look at the wall of PS1 games, I admit I was a bit envious at times. Now when I look at a wall of Wii games, I search for the nearest receptacle to throw up in.

[alegoicoe]

thats thaeir best way to admit that thay are being outsold by a less powerfull machine

[Tanooki]

That makes sense. Talk about how irrelevant and any other good excuse you can chuck and use it to shadow sales figures.

[MR EPIC]

But the article was written by a third party on a Nintendo website no less. It wasn't written by either Sony of MS so I don't see why there would be any reason for this person to take sides.

[Tanooki]

Why not? You're a Nintendo fan and have had pleasure in coming down on them very hard for various reasons lately. Same kind of setup really. Just means his site owners don't have issue with writer negativity.

[MR EPIC]

Or it just means we're calling it how we see it.

[JValone]

You can tell this article was written by a gamer and not a business major, I can say that first off with confidence. Some good points are made, no doubt, but I don't think this can really be taken as a totally valid view of the situation.

In the short term Sony and Microsoft can avoid worrying about the Wii, but that's really only because they have no chance of dethroning it within the next three years. They're both locked in at 2nd/3rd (order TBD) and the audience they currently appeal to is similar enough to make it an even more clear-cut competition between the two HD machines. But if you seriously think that either one of them is ignoring what Nintendo is doing entirely you're living in denial. And, honestly, a majority of core gamers have been in denial for several years now when it comes to Wii.

Does the avatar and NXE "upgrade" the 360 recently got strike you as a strategy that ignores the Wii? Do you honestly believe that would have come into existence if Nintendo's device wasn't sporting eerily similar concepts? Even Sony's Home service is an extremely casual focused initiative, though it's tough to say too much about it until it's open to the general public.

If Sony or Microsoft ignore Nintendo's success in the long term the bean counters at their respective divisions will riot, and rightfully so. You can't be happy with 30% (360) and 21% (PS3) of the market respectively if you're trying to be a serious business, you just can't, that would be insane. Nintendo holds 49% of the console market at this juncture and for all the talk about Wii being a "gimmick" (or Wii Play, or Wii Fit, or Wii Music, etc.) they've managed that feat without a single sales-boosting maneuver. They're outselling the HD consoles combined on a month-by-month basis without a single price drop, or a single new color scheme, a single new pack-in deal. All of those options are right there on the table just waiting for Iwata to say "Alright, the beating isn't up to par at the moment. Let's increase the pressure."

It is very likely that at the end of this generation the Wii will have marginalized the 360/PS3 in much the same way the PS2 dominated the Xbox/GC. That simply cannot be ignored. I realize gamers are looking for a silver lining, be it superior software, different focus, higher attach rate, and a multitude of other things to justify the mind-boggling impossibility that Nintendo (of all companies, the kiddy-est one! the one who doesn't wuv us!) is delivering a historical ass-whooping on their preferred hardware but we can't lose touch with reality. And the reality is the only reason that the 360/PS3 can ignore the Wii at present is because the Wii is simply untouchable.

Next generation we're going to see some serious movement with Nintendo's flock in mind. As core gamers we might want to pray this ignore strategy, the one that makes zero sense and thus would be incredibly foolhardy to adopt, is actually chosen instead of the more logical alternatives. The only reason Sony or Microsoft caters to any of you is because you are all that they have. If they can throw you under the bus for the Wii Play-loving masses, you know, the ones that will quadruple profitability, there will be no hesitation. It's just business.

It will be interesting to see how gamers react to the reality that all three hardware providers are going to be shooting for the casual audience in the near future. NXE and avatars are just one step, you don't really think that's the end of it do you? Ignorance of the market leader's strategy simply won't happen, but emulation of that strategy will. Not until next round of course, for the time being we'll just see some experimentation in that direction such as NXE. Let's just not mistake the 360/PS3's avoidance of Wii as them being in a position with leverage, it's more about them being unable to do anything about an insurmountable foe. Next generation everyone will be on equal ground again and I believe that's when we're going to see this silly "we don't compete with them" double-speak replace with a head-on rush for the money.

I'm not a Wii apologist. I'll be the first to tell you I've barely touched it in 2008, the PS3 gets 90% of my gaming time these days. But just because my preference has moved elsewhere (mostly because EAD's major projects are deep in development, leaving a ridiculous gap in the release schedule and dumped Wii Music and a barely-different Animal Crossing in there to fill it) doesn't mean I'm going to assume that Sony is my good buddy now. If anything Nintendo taught a lot of people a valuable lesson that we all need to understand, we're customers. Not valued customers, just customers. These companies want a lot of people to buy their product, they don't much care who. I'm just hoping that when Sony and Microsoft dive headfirst into the competition for the casual dollar they'll retain enough of the core development talent they boast at present to make it worth my while.

[Coral]

Why do the participants in the gaming industry feel that they have to control a majority of the market? In the TV market and Cell Phone market there are over 20 companies. So why isnt making a profit enough? No we have to own EVERYTHING!

[MR EPIC]

You can tell this article was written by a gamer and not a business major, I can say that first off with confidence.

Fair enough.

The only reason Sony or Microsoft caters to any of you is because you are all that they have. If they can throw you under the bus for the Wii Play-loving masses, you know, the ones that will quadruple profitability, there will be no hesitation. It's just business.

Likewise, your post sounds like it was written by a business major and not a gamer. I honestly don't know what side you stand on sometimes. You say that you play PS3 90% of the time, yet I get the feeling that somewhere you're in the background snickering at MS/Sony and applauding what Nintendo has done. Basically what I gathered from your post is that we gamers are all but extinct and a completely casual future is inevitable. If this is truly the direction in which Nintendo leads the industry then they are nothing more than a very distant memory to me. I stayed around in gaming because of them, but if what you're saying comes true they will be the very company to drive me away from it.

[Sascha-AMN]

You're right Josh, Microsoft and Sony probably will follow Nintendo's lead next generation, but I disagree that its a particularly good idea, even business-wise. The companies and products that succeed are the ones that differentiate themselves from competing products, essentially remove themselves from direct competition and cater to a different audience altogether. Doing so prevents consumers from easily substituting one product for another, it allows things like brand, features, value to sell the product instead of basic price wars.

Nintendo is succeeding right now because they successfully differentiated themselves from Microsoft and Sony. Whereas the Xbox 360 and PS3 are effectively very similar and fans of the experience they provide can easily weigh the pros and cons of each and switch between them if one stops offering the value they want, the Wii is the only game in town as far as social/casual gaming. Combine that with the 'lifestyle' approach Nintendo has chosen to sell the thing on instead of feature-set and it makes substituting the Wii with another product very difficult. Sony found success the same way, albeit less overtly, by offering a distinctly different kind of subject-matter in the games and lifestyle-by-association in the advertisements. Nintendo and Sega could be grouped together in the consumer's mind as 'games for kids', while Sony monopolized the markets on 'entertainment for young adults'.

Positioning the next Xbox and Playstation as direct competitors to the Wii in terms of functionality and content would be a stupid move. Wii has the market locked up, it's the established brand, so making the next Xbox and PS more like the Wii would only allow consumers to substitute away from those consoles to the Wii more easily. Why buy the pretender when you can get the real thing. Microsoft and Sony would both be better off trying to identify a different target market (whether thats hardcore gamers or something else, it doesnt matter) and establishing their product as the premier brand for that market (and whatever purpose they deem attractive to that market). They wouldnt be able to steal too many of the casual, non-gamers from Nintendo, but they would be able consolidate other markets and ensure profitability.

Going head-to-head with Nintendo on what is obviously now Nintendo's turf would be tantamount to suicide. No company has ever successfully muscled an established brand presence out of the top spot, coups occur when one company innovates their way around the top dog and attracts new or different consumers with a new and different pitch. Sony did with the PSX, Nintendo is doing it with the Wii. Sony and Microsoft need to figure out the best means to do it for themselves.

Now, personally I believe they could do it by focusing on hardcore gamers. In every industry, from alcohol to industrial equipment, heavy users account for approximately 20% of the market but 80% of the industry's profits. Those infrequent consumers, or 'casual' consumers, are a far bigger chunk of the market, but they just dont buy as much, and its not a phenomenon exclusive to videogames. Lets also not forget that the videogame industry is basically one big licensing industry, no one makes more than 1-5% profit on the actual hardware even at the best of times, including Nintendo (they never take a loss, but they never make more profit per console than Sony does once they turn the corner on economies of scale and cost of manufacturing). Console manufacturers make over 15% profit on every game sold on their console though. So if Sony and Microsoft actually leveraged their relationships with third parties and made their consoles the go-to places for third parties, they could make plenty of money even with a much smaller install-base. The fact that developers naturally gravitate towards those two companies as it currently stands makes it a great opportunity to capitalize on.

[JValone]

Likewise, your post sounds like it was written by a business major and not a gamer. I honestly don't know what side you stand on sometimes. You say that you play PS3 90% of the time, yet I get the feeling that somewhere you're in the background snickering at MS/Sony and applauding what Nintendo has done. Basically what I gathered from your post is that we gamers are all but extinct and a completely casual future is inevitable. If this is truly the direction in which Nintendo leads the industry then they are nothing more than a very distant memory to me. I stayed around in gaming because of them, but if what you're saying comes true they will be the very company to drive me away from it.

I just tried to look at it from the business perspective since that article basically tosses that out the window. I'm definitely in an odd position this generation, no doubt about that. Nintendo has in the past (NES through GC) provided me with all the entertainment I needed when it came to gaming. I played competitors but I bought very few of them because in all honesty I had my fix and I couldn't justify putting down another $200 when that could get me four more titles for my current hardware.

This generation Nintendo is absolutely not satisfying my gaming needs, though they actually were doing a passable job through the end of 2007, so I got a PS3 to fill some of the void. The problem is Sony and Microsoft are extremely western leaning in their lineups so I can't say I'm 100% in their camp. I have no interest in first person shooters and WRPGs are boring to me, Mass Effect and KOTOR excluded, so the lineups of these machines have not yet matched what I found on previous Nintendo hardware. The future looks much brighter in that regard however, so I'm not giving up on them just yet. I just can't stand firmly in the HD camp and proclaim it as true greatness as most core gamers have done because neither side, to me, has earned the right to be given a big slap on the back. They're both flawed, Sony and Microsoft to a much lesser extent.

I think we gamers are going to become less of a focus for Sony and Microsoft going forward, though probably not totally abandoned. I think it will become something similar to how the current music scene is filled with very popular performers who are considered less talented than other obscure acts by some hardcore followers of certain genres. I just can't see Epic, Bioware, Atlus, or Square doing a complete 180 for non-gamers. I can see Activision/EA/Capcom/Namco making the switch. I don't believe Nintendo will destroy gaming. It will just make it truly mass market with all the positives (no more stigma causing talented individuals to choose music/film instead of a career in gaming) and negatives (a lot of best-selling games will be awful) that go along with that transition.


Why do the participants in the gaming industry feel that they have to control a majority of the market? In the TV market and Cell Phone market there are over 20 companies. So why isnt making a profit enough? No we have to own EVERYTHING!

This is an excellent point. If we were talking about Sega, or even Nintendo, in this situation I would say there is a distinct possibility that they would choose to carve out a very specific niche as long as it remained profitable. In fact I remember arguing with those who thought Nintendo would leave the console market after the GC's failure by arguing that exact same point, that seems like a long time ago now.

The problem is we're talking about Sony and Microsoft, not Nintendo or Sega. The current HD competitors are part of giant corporations who have far-reaching aspirations. They aren't specifically tied to the gaming industry so outside interests, and the need to just be a really profitable/competitive division, tend to force them towards the biggest prize which is currently casual gaming. I would be perfectly fine with either Sony or Microsoft sticking with "core" players and ignoring the casual crowd, just as I was fine with it when I assumed that was Nintendo's future. I'm just not sure that either of the giants are really going to move in that direction, I would be very surprised if they did since it contradicts their Blu-Ray/Windows in every living room master plans.


Sorry if any of that is a bit incoherent, it's late and I'm about to go to bed.

[originalself]

Console manufacturers make over 15% profit on every game sold on their console though.

I am glad someone around here knows how business is done.

For all the doom and gloom mongering that nintendo is destroying core gaming for everyone, MS still sells more games than the other two combined. As long as 360 owners keep buying more games than everyone else MS will lead next gen with a core heavy system but with open casual games via arcade.

[Darc Requiem]

The 'casual gamer' as it is now defined by Nintendo is very different, and third party developers are taking that into account as they develop their games.

I agree with you on that point. We all had a similar discussion about this in another thread. Games have become increasing complex as time goes on. There was no need for a distinction in software type, casual/hardcore, in the past. As console gaming has gotten farther and farther away form its arcade roots, games have lost their pick up and play aspect. Nintendo has tapped into that aspect and ultimately that is the reason for their ballooning sales. When I started gaming, I'll 29 Friday so I know I'm in the AARP of gamers, you could master the play mechanics of any game in 5 minutes no matter what the genre. You can't do that anymore.

There is a BIG difference between what Sony did and what Nintendo is doing now. First of all, I wouldn't say that we were "fans" of 2D gaming but rather fans of video games in general. 2D games were all that we had up to that point and 3D was just the natural progression of the industry. And at least what Sony was pushing were more video games. A lot of what makes up the Wii library are mini-games and titles that traditional gamers wouldn't take a second look at. When I owned an N64 and would look at the wall of PS1 games, I admit I was a bit envious at times. Now when I look at a wall of Wii games, I search for the nearest receptacle to throw up in.

The only difference is you were interested in the PS1 games and aren't interest in the Wii games. Not only that Sony actively discouraged 2D titles. To my knowledge, Nintendo hasn't told 3rd parties they can only make mini-games. At least publicly, they've asked for better efforts from third parties.

@JValone

We seem to be in a similar boat. The 360 is my favorite console and I hadn't played my Wii much until I just burned through ToS2 in the last week. Truthfully I don't need anything outside of a 360. Sure there would be some games on other platforms that I'd miss but 360 has the most games I like to play. All I need is Street Fighter and some RPGs anything else is a bonus. :D

[Tanooki]

Wow this topic got very interesting thanks to Josh there. I would have loved to have gone there before but certain entities here would have just tried to tear it down because I only have a Wii so therefore I'm not allowed an opinion. Thing is, I'm in the same boat as Josh, but since my ass has been on a living paycheck to paycheck budget this entire generation I went the cheap route to diversity...PSP swapping out my GBA collection and using a few bucks I had luckily. Since I've had that short of spurts like Chocobo's Dungeon(Wii) or a RPG or two on the DS the PSP has got the most time out of me since I got it many months ago. Honestly I put a lot of thought and debate on the boards here into it and I know had I some deep pockets to do it I'd plunge into a PS3 and be like Josh there probably in % of game time too between the two. The Wii gives great game experience, but this year as Nintendo spent their lineup a year ago, I only use it when something cool like COD, Chocobo, Animal Crossing, and so on come along now and again.

I find it sad that so many gamers who started in my old days or with the 3D revolution a little over a decade ago that many are so insecure that they need to make up stories and slam Nintendo for taking a new direction. They slammed them then, and then when it actually worked out, then Nintendo gets reviled as the company that is going to destroy their lives by destroying their hobby. It clearly hasn't done that. It clearly also isn't a threat to hardcore gaming given the numbers that the HD systems and the PSP can pull on big name stuff in spite of the margin Nintendo owns. They can both exist and I wish the stuck up close minded types would just grow up, stop whining, and realize that. I think it's likely a case of just bad apples because their whipping boy of 10 years is now doing the whipping and it feels bad having the tables turned.


Darc you are correct about the whole Sony thing you had to explain there. They nearly banned 2D games calling them the past and slapped on steep fines on any 3rd party who dared a 2D game, such as the favorites like SOTN, and Capcom's hugeass 2D fighters that graced the PSX. Nintendo has no regulations that encourage or require(or get fined) to do minigames in a game or full packages, thankfully.

[Sascha-AMN]

People can slam Sony for limiting 2D games on the PSX (lord knows I have), but at least they actively stood up for and enforced their own (skewed) definition of quality. Nintendo will allow any schlock that finds a publisher to appear on their console, and it only hurts the console's perception among hardcore gamers (otherwise known as 'the people that buy games'). Would it really be a bad thing if Nintendo stood up and said 'you know what, no more of this ****. If you want your game on the Wii, here are our criteria for a good game.'

[Tanooki]

Nope it wouldn't be a bad thing. They basically are doing the same open door policy Sony had when the PSX kicked off to get all they could...turd on a disc was acceptable for them then, and Nintendo stupidly/sadly now.

[Darc Requiem]

People can slam Sony for limiting 2D games on the PSX (lord knows I have), but at least they actively stood up for and enforced their own (skewed) definition of quality. Nintendo will allow any schlock that finds a publisher to appear on their console, and it only hurts the console's perception among hardcore gamers (otherwise known as 'the people that buy games'). Would it really be a bad thing if Nintendo stood up and said 'you know what, no more of this ****. If you want your game on the Wii, here are our criteria for a good game.'

Sony had near zero quality control on PS1. As long as the game wasn't 2D, they could care less about its quality. In fact, at the time people complained about Sony's lack of quality control and the rampant shovelware.

[MR EPIC]

Anyone seriously trying to say that the PS1 and the Wii have comparable game line-ups is in denial and speaking beyond fanboyish. Having similar policies and featuring similar software are not the same thing by a long shot.

Why are we all arguing in the first place? Why is anybody defending Nintendo on any level? Haven't we all admitted that our Wiis don't get much play time at all compared to our PS3, 360s, PSPs, or other systems of choice? We all acknowledge Nintendo's success with the Wii, so yeah that's great. But how does that affect any of us in any sort of positive way other than having a warm feeling for the company who got us started in gaming for the most part? What have they done for us lately and what will they do for us in the forseeable future? The 360 is easily the front runner of great traditional game software followed by the PS3, PSP, and DS, with Wii in a very very distant last place.

[Sascha-AMN]

Sony had near zero quality control on PS1. As long as the game wasn't 2D, they could care less about its quality. In fact, at the time people complained about Sony's lack of quality control and the rampant shovelware.

Who the hell complained about the PSX having shovel-ware? I know N64 fans claimed the PSX had more bad games than good, but they were buying into Nintendo's 'quality over quantity' slogan BS and convincing themselves than one 10/10 every 2 years was a better deal than 60+ B+ to A titles every year. The PSX quality/crap ratio wasnt any worse than the SNES, Genesis, PS2 or 360. The Wii's is off-the-charts horrible.

[Smokey]

Why are we all arguing in the first place? Why is anybody defending Nintendo on any level? Haven't we all admitted that our Wiis don't get much play time at all compared to our PS3, 360s, PSPs, or other systems of choice? We all acknowledge Nintendo's success with the Wii, so yeah that's great. But how does that affect any of us in any sort of positive way other than having a warm feeling for the company who got us started in gaming for the most part? What have they done for us lately and what will they do for us in the forseeable future? The 360 is easily the front runner of great traditional game software followed by the PS3, PSP, and DS, with Wii in a very very distant last place.

Why is Nintendo being defended? Because the writer acts like its a non-factor. Well, any idiot that hasn't been hiding under a rock for the past few years knows that that statement is not only wrong, it's moronic.

Simply put, your displeasure means nothing to them. To them, you're a very small fish in a HUGE ocean. And it's the same way with MS and Sony, only they waited too long to hop on the bandwagon that Nintendo has commandeered.

MS and Sony don't care about core or hardcore gamers. It's the formula they used from last-gen, and to deviate from that now would not only alienate them, but like Sascha said, catering to the casual gamer might not get them more; it might get them less. Basically, they're stuck with what they get until next-gen rolls around. Then you'd have a real reason to bitch. Instead of "Ninty isn't doing what I want, Imma going to MS/Sony", it'd be "Ninty isn't doing what I want, and neither is MS/Sony, I miss Sega".

[JValone]

When Nintendo actually had quality control journalists and gamers alike were insistent that was part of the reason they got such sub-par 3rd party support. They claimed NCL was too strict about content, and in all honesty at that time they were probably right. So what does Iwata do? He drops quality control to appease critics and this is what happens.

Let's be serious though. The Wii does not have a 70/30 split of titles that are Ninjabread Man quality. Those are the minority and by a huge margin to boot. The majority of the games that most gamers would cite as poor would in fact pass the PS1/PS2 quality examination because the bar wasn't even that high. The Wii is indeed filled with mini-game fests and mediocre entries in other genres, along with numerous PS2/PSP ports, but that problem would absolutely not be solved with tougher quality control because all the titles in those categories would still easily pass inspection.

The state of Wii software is what it is because 3rd parties are not putting effort into their projects on that hardware. You can make legitimate arguments for why they have every right to keep shoveling crap on there, and I'm not going to argue anyone down about it. I'm just saying quality control will not solve anything. It will knock maybe 50 games a year off the shelves which hardly sell anyway. The weaknesses the Wii has cannot be solved by a simple silver bullet in the form of quality control, it will accomplish nothing substantial. It amazes me, well not really considering how much negative press the Wii receives, that this is even an issue. It doesn't matter because it changes nothing either way, unless you can prove a large percentage of titles on Wii would in fact not pass 360/PS3 inspection standards.

The Wii has major shortcomings, no question. I would consider it the worst Nintendo console ever at this juncture. I think there are enough legitimate things to criticize about the machine and Nintendo's general approach that we don't have to bring up the issue of quality control which if implemented would leave Wii owners with a nearly identical lineup.

[Hottotty]

I would really love to know who's making money off the shovelware, and who's losing money. My worry is that casual gamers have no idea what's good or not, buy a game at random, and companies think they can continue selling crap because they're making cash at it. I call it the Acclaim effect.

[Darc Requiem]

Who the hell complained about the PSX having shovel-ware? I know N64 fans claimed the PSX had more bad games than good, but they were buying into Nintendo's 'quality over quantity' slogan BS and convincing themselves than one 10/10 every 2 years was a better deal than 60+ B+ to A titles every year. The PSX quality/crap ratio wasnt any worse than the SNES, Genesis, PS2 or 360. The Wii's is off-the-charts horrible.

Sascha take the blinders off. Every console that dominates has a an abundance of shovelware. The 2600, NES, PS1, PS2, GB, DS, etc. Dominant first place consoles have the most users and get the bulk poor quality cash in software. Sure second and third place consoles get some of those titles but by in large they are mostly prevalent on the console with largest userbase.

@Epic

Not about defending Nintendo. More about sour grapes. It seems like people have an inability to face the fact their favorite console isn't succeeding as much as they hoped. If the Wii wasn't a competitor and didn't matter, there wouldn't be so many editorials being written by people trying to convince themselves of that fact. The reality is Nintendo is succeeding without them and they can't handle it.

[Tanooki]

That's a really jerky response there Epic you did yesterday evening. It doesn't take a fanboy to realize there was a horrendous pile of crap on the PSX in the first couple years of its existence. I didn't have one, people I knew did, so there was exposure and it was awful. They had the worst pile of things to mess around with for a good little period of time and really is quite comparable to the Wii in that respect so far. PSX had in that period had no quality controls, Wii as of now doesn't either. PSX in that time span had few gems and mostly bunk, like Wii, and both took off taking a grab at a new market by changing the rules. I'd say the situation is quite comparable. If we could assume the Wii would live on for like 7 years like PSX well did until PS2 so dominated, perhaps we'll see the same level of ramp up too. TO say it can't happen is also as you put it 'fanboy' because anything is possible. PSX took a couple years to get some good quality runs of stuff because it took that long for majority adopters to get on and start making stuff. The Wii right now looking into it's time after 2 years has a nice pile of stuff to come so perhaps things will take that upward swing too.

JV is right, there is not a 70/30 split of Ninjabreadman to quality stuff on the system and I think those who aren't blind to that reality are getting pissed at jerks like that writer who come off with that crap attitude. The same thing they hailed as the opening of the door 10 years ago when it was Sony is now the jerks of today claiming it's the end of days because now Nintendo is doing it with Wii not being shortsighted like others who just think you cater to the 'core' and the others can jump on or screw off. Business is about expanding the base and getting more owners, more repeat buyers, and more supporters, not alienating new markets and customers and staying on the fringe. MS got smart to that with their new Mii-like avatars and softer dashboard, interest in a Wii like controller, and some software in and down the pipe. Nintendo software being mediocre (neither suck or successfully grade A) is due to 3rd parties doing a disservice, while others are still in that window of making something great as I addressed in my psx vs wii first 2 years paragraph above. There are good reasons to pick on the Wii for sure, but quality control isn't really the large one as it's a blip as very few of the stuff out there is total trash that would fail the test elsewhere.

[MR EPIC]

Why is Nintendo being defended? Because the writer acts like its a non-factor.

And?! Are we supposed to care that much about a company who is doing nothing for us that we need to jump to it's aid each and every time somebody makes an potentially incorrect comment about them?

Not about defending Nintendo. More about sour grapes. It seems like people have an inability to face the fact their favorite console isn't succeeding as much as they hoped. If the Wii wasn't a competitor and didn't matter, there wouldn't be so many editorials being written by people trying to convince themselves of that fact. The reality is Nintendo is succeeding without them and they can't handle it.

I understand the logic Darc, but if you go back and look at some of these posts (including your own) it looks much more like Nintendo defense than finding fault with the editorial. As gamers our responses should probably have done a lot more agreeing with the article, at least on the level of Wii going in a completely different direction and appealing to a completely different crowd. Then at some point in our response it would make sense to have pointed out Wii's phenomenal success and that maybe there was a hint of bitterness in the foundation of the writer's article. But as it stands most of the responses completely come to Nintendo's aid (a company that is doing nothing for us currently) as if we were share-holders and that we can't for one minute let go of our deep rootedness in the company even when the truth of the article hits us in the f ace.

The simple fact that the majority of us have admitted to very little Wii use if any at all, yet still feel compelled to come to the company's aid on any level implies defense and fanboyism the way I see it. I don't see any other logical reason to stand up for somebody who's doing nothing for you, by your own admitted words. Just think about that for a few minutes.

[Smokey]

And?! Are we supposed to care that much about a company who is doing nothing for us that we need to jump to it's aid each and every time somebody makes an potentially incorrect comment about them?

When it's bull****, yeah.

Anyway, it's not as though MS and Sony have exactly been the people's advocate. Why single out Nintendo? Call 'em all on their bull****.

[MR EPIC]

I call each and every company out on their BS, but MS and Sony give me less reason to because they actually make ya know video games that gamers like.

[Coral]

I guess if Microsoft and Sony were around when peoples balls were newly formed and being freshly tickled things would be different.

[HGW XX/7]

I call each and every company out on their BS, but MS and Sony give me less reason to because they actually make ya know video games that gamers like.

Actually, it's the third parties making those game 95% of the time. Nintendo's released more of their 'core' franchises on the Wii than they have stupid "Wii (insert name here)'s)".

Sony makes games, sure. Microsoft doesn't really... they publish them.

The third parties are to blame for the Wii's assness, not Nintendo.

And this is coming from someone who's not a Nintendo fan by any stretch of the imagination.

[MR EPIC]

Actually, it's the third parties making those game 95% of the time.

I meant "feature" when I said make rather than MS/Sony actually developing all of the games themselves.

The third parties are to blame for the Wii's assness, not Nintendo.

I completely disagree. I think it's up to the console maker (especially when they are also one of the top video game publishers/developers in the world) to set the tone for what type of software that a game console will feature and clearly Nintendo has done that with their heavy focus (and marketing) of games Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Wii Music. Do you actually expect third parties to be able to compete with Nintendo's on their own console and make hardcore genres standout over the casual stuff? Nobody has ever been able to compete with Nintendo on their own console and it's certainly not going to happen now with the type of demographic that makes up the Wii installed base.

As hard as High Voltage is working and as much time as they're putting into "The Conduit", you watch and see how poorly it does on a system that is primarily known for family games and other casually focused efforts. You can't put any of the blame on third parties after seeing the direction that Nintendo themselves have taken with their software and the console in general. As JV said before, you can't focus on both casual and hardcore at the same time. Nintendo wanted casual, so they got casual.

[Tanooki]

Actually Nintendo makes a ton of games gamers like, that's a really arrogant statement. It's the third parties caught with their pants down combined with some shovelware crap that has put games out that gamers don't want. Not quite fair getting the two mixed up.

Yes it's up to the 1st party to put out quality titles and to ensure a level of it too, but they can not force people to put out X game or they can't sell stuff. Nintendo tried that kind of in the past, we saw the lawsuits and other crap that came down from being bullies.

[prime_timer]

Quick note: What games do they have that gamers like? Did they sneak some past the documented release schedule? Is the fat, carter faced ****tard at GameStop keeping them hidden behind his counter? Have I got to journey into a volcano to find them? I can count all the games I want to play on the Wii with one hand and still have fingers to spare. Nintendo hasn't done a goddamn thing for the core gamer this generation.

[MR EPIC]

Let's see what exactly Nintendo has put out that is so hardcore and can compare to the 360/PS3 hardcore games...

Twilight Princess - A good game but it was a port of a GC game so that shows me very little effort.

Super Mario Galaxy - A great game and a good example of Nintendo leading the way.

Fire Emblem - Another Port of a GC title

Warioland Shake - A decent effort but nothing up to the usual Nintendo standard and nothing that would turn the heads of non-Nintendo core gamers.

SSBB - A game with a lot of options but a very very poor online mode which was never patched or even attempted to be patched.

MKWii - A racer that brought nothing new to the table aside from a gimmicky wheel.

Metroid Prime 3 - Another good game and good example of Nintendo leading the way.

Out of those 6 games I would only consider both SMG and MP3 as truly standout software

But the point of all this is that these games are not the focus of the Wii nor were they cared for and marketed properly to contend with the likes of Wii Fit, Wii Sports, or Wii Music. Nintendo clearly has a casual vision for the Wii and no third party developer is going to singlehandly change that focus. Their attitude is "if you can't beat em' join em'" and I can't fault any of them for that.

Quick note: What games do they have that gamers like? Did they sneak some past the documented release schedule? Is the fat, carter faced ****tard at GameStop keeping them hidden behind his counter? Have I got to journey into a volcano to find them? I can count all the games I want to play on the Wii with one hand and still have fingers to spare. Nintendo hasn't done a goddamn thing for the core gamer this generation.

QFMFT!

Anybody still defending Wii at this point is not a hardcore gamer and has lost touch with the gaming industry, pure and simple.

[Tanooki]

PT maybe the 'core' gamer just has its collective head up its ass if it hasn't seen anything worth playing more than 2-3 games on the system. Perhaps the core gamer is the same sick individual as the technophile when it comes to other electronics who can never be happy unless they feel they're getting the most expensive and what they're told is the best of the best? Nintendo alone gave the core gamer so far plenty of reasons to be happy and in a hell of a lot shorter amount of time than in past generations. The failing here is pretty much squarely sitting on the third parties this time around.

You don't need to own a 360 or a PS3 to be a hardcore gamer Epic.

[prime_timer]

When easily 85% of the must have games of the year are not on your system, there is no way you can justify being "a hardcore gamer", and therefore would make certain individuals holding this belief the ones with their heads up their ass. Also, please don't generalize my opinion on the rest of the hardcore gaming population. I know plenty of people who have played the **** out of the Wii (and would TOUT IT SUPERIOR while playing with these parties on Xbox Live mind you) and they have pretty much come running back to this camp in the end.

[Coral]

Ken is right. Sorry Jeff.


Wii does have a few good core games, but for the most part they arent very memmorable. I enjoyed TP and Galaxy, and Zack and Wiki, but does anyone that bought and played them talk about them anymore? Did they last for more than a month? I know there are people here who love Gaxaly and think its one of the best games that have been released this generation, but those same people play games on the 360 and PS3 way more, and they dont talk about Galaxy except when defending the Wii.

Im not sure why you think wanting the best means youre a techophile, or an arrogant asshole, but what is wrong with wanting the best of the best if you can afford it. Maybe its just you that happens to have a high tolerance for mediocre video games, and you want to use your own personal fun factor as a reason for others to praise the Wii.

I wonder if there is even a point to telling you this. It seems like no matter how many Core Wii games come out and end up less than stellar, while month after month the 360 and in some cases the PS3 churn out gem after gem, you wont admit that for a person serious about core games, the only place they need to go is 360 or PS3.

[MR EPIC]

Nintendo alone gave the core gamer so far plenty of reasons to be happy and in a hell of a lot shorter amount of time than in past generations.

No, Nintendo gave "core Nintendo gamers" something to be happy about, and even then the quality of the Wii entries to most of those franchises are questionable at best. Core gamers are those who reside on XBL and the remainder are on Sony's machine. And this type of gamer does not consider Nintendo games to be core at all. I talk to a lot of people on XBL who used to be avid Nintendo fans, and when I mention the latest Mario or Zelda game, the majority thinks I'm talking about Majora's Mask and Super Mario 64. You know why? Because they haven't considered Nintendo to be a serious core contender since back in the N64 days. I guarantee you ask the stereotypical 360 or even PS3 owner about Wind Waker, Twilight Princess or Mario Galaxy they won't have a ****ing clue as to what you are talking about.

And yes, you do have to play 360 or PS3 to be considered a current core gamer. There are exceptions where somebody may have a really busy schedule and only have time for handhelds, but nobody playing Wii only is a hardcore gamer.

[Smokey]

I call each and every company out on their BS, but MS and Sony give me less reason to because they actually make ya know video games that gamers like.

Um, pretty sure that Nintendo is satisfying some gamers. Otherwise, economists better get cracking 'cause there's a completely new economic phenomenon that is the core of Nintendo's success.:dry:

How ****ing arrogant can you be when you can not only state with absolute certainty that a Nintendo gamer cannot be a hardcore gamer, but also assume that you can speak for every hardcore gamer out there? You don't like what Nintendo is doing? Fine, but don't bitch and piss on people that do. There's more of them than there are of you.

EDIT: Oh, and nice sig, BTW. Way to cherrypick what you want from other people's opinions. You could work for Kotaku, you know that?

[MR EPIC]

Funny how you respond to me but not to either Coral or Prime Timer eh? I'm not even going to respond to your post as it's never objective. You're another one who doesn't play a lick of Wii but are the 1st in line to defend them. You could work for Nintendo you know that? And the reason I quoted JV is because he's the only Nintendo fan besides myself who can be objective about the company and who also deals in reality. Oh, and Kotaku is an amazing website by the way.

[Smokey]

Funny how you respond to me but not to either Coral or Prime Timer eh? I'm not even going to respond to your post as it's never objective. You're another one who doesn't play a lick of Wii but are the 1st in line to defend them. You could work for Nintendo you know that? And the reason I quoted JV is because he's the only Nintendo fan besides myself who can be objective about the company and who also deals in reality. Oh, and Kotaku is an amazing website by the way.

Just ignore my post and say I'm not objective, huh? What a ****ing cop out. I suppose closing the thread is next?

I haven't responded to PT and Coral because they at least appear to be dealing with this logically. You're the one that feels an unnecessary need to piss on Nintendo and all who enjoy at least some of their stuff when MS and Sony would do the exact same thing given half a chance. Open your ****ing eyes, they're BUSINESSES. They're in it for money, not a warm fuzzy feeling that comes from attending to your whim.

I actually do play my Wii, thank you very much, and though I haven't been able to purchase any recent games, I've rented a few and played the ones I own numerous times. There are several Wii games out and coming that I would enjoy, to boot.

Finally, just because Kotaku is in line with your questionable line of thinking doesn't mean it's great.

[Tanooki]

Well if you guys wish to live in the vocal minority in fantasy land where you have to play the 360 and PS3 to be a core gamer that's fun and I hope you enjoy that. It's a lame tag and I think we've gone over that enough here too over the months. I'm happy with the Wii, DS, PSP, and my new PC. I got plenty to keep me going whichever I choose to use that day so I have no complaints in general at all. Perhaps I'm more of a handheld gamer these days, I dunno, but outside of some piss poor 3rd party efforts the Wii has kept me happy on my TV and the PC in the bedroom here.

OH and epic, if those people you speak of bring up N64 games, it's clear they haven't touched a Nintendo system in a decade and kind of goes to show they don't know what they're talking about (ie: out of touch) if you bring up something since then which kind of leaves a gaping hole in that argument if they have no experiences since the cartridge based days. Yah Nintendo gave people who like 1st party games many reasons to be happy, we agree there. The problem is the 3rd parties have yet to deliver enough to keep core type players happy too, and Nintendo can't just force that to happen so again I don't lay blame on them for it. We know I'm not confused or out of it as I've clearly said I get my game time across 3 maker formats (pc, nintendo, and sony) so I got plenty from many genres to do, but I do understand the Wii gives me enough to be happy with it while others just want to trash it for trashing sake and it's just sad.

And coral I'll never admit that the only means of being a core gamer is to sell the Wii and buy a 360 and/or PS3 as that's just stupid. All it really shows is not what is there or not as far as 'core' stuff goes, but a personal preference on what one person vs another wants to narrowly define as core to make a fallacious argument to stand on. I also actually thanks to Midway have a very low bull**** tolerance to games and bore of them real fast if they're trashy or mediocre as in all fairness working 6 days a week 15hours/day on a game for months on end will do permanent damage. :P And actually people DO discuss those games you spoke of, plenty do, you just have to go to where they're discussed is all, and this site just isn't one of them which helps make your argument.

[HGW XX/7]

I completely disagree. I think it's up to the console maker (especially when they are also one of the top video game publishers/developers in the world) to set the tone for what type of software that a game console will feature and clearly Nintendo has done that with their heavy focus (and marketing) of games Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Wii Music.

What games have in-house Microsoft devs made again? Viva Pinata, Viva Pinata Trouble In Paradise, Viva Pinata Party Animals, Kameo, and PD0? Real hardcore of them. What's Sony made for the PS3 that 'sets the tone'? Not much.

That said, Viva Pinata is an exellent game.

Nintendo hasn't told devs what they can and can't make. They've never said, "No, Ubisoft, you only have to make casual games."

Nintendo hasn't been trying to make any deals with third parties to secure games, sure, but they're number 1. They shouldn't have to. Nintendo's ALWAYS had a family focus. I don't see why people are suddenly surprised by it.

[MR EPIC]

You're funny Smokey. I do speak for the majority of core gamers, even more so than I speak for myself. At least in some way I still remain loyal to Nintendo where the majority of core gamers have completely put them out of mind for the better part of 10 years. I could easily name at least 5-10 people here (who play games on a regular basis) who agree with my line of thinking but for the sake of not getting them involved I won't. It's not like I have to anyway, because I'm sure you've seen their posts at one time or another. The truth is that you like to single me out because I speak strongly and also because you don't like me. Well good for you. As long as the subject is on topic and you're not directly insulting me I'm fine with this topic going on for as long as it needs to. So please don't pull that Blokeymon **** on me and assume that I'm going to close the thread. I've hardly lost the argument and even if I had I can admit when I'm wrong, unlike so many of you. Know why? Because I actually have a life and trying to look good on a public game forums is not my sole purpose.

BTW - Reagan wanted me to post for him by saying that he's had it with the Wii and he's not only selling his system but since he's left the forums he's become a huge 360 fan. Imagine that.

[HGW XX/7]

BTW - Reagan wanted me to post for him by saying that he's had it with the Wii and he's not only selling his system but since he's left the forums he's become a huge 360 fan. Imagine that.

You and I both know that anything Reagan says can be taken with heaping pile of salt. :D

[MR EPIC]

What games have in-house Microsoft devs made again? Viva Pinata, Viva Pinata Trouble In Paradise, Viva Pinata Party Animals, Kameo, and PD0? Real hardcore of them. What's Sony made for the PS3 that 'sets the tone'? Not much.

Are you really not getting my point? Nintendo has been one of the top software publishers and developers for the longest time and it's been impossible for even the highest caliber third party companies to compete with them on their own consoles. This is not the same case for MS and Sony because they've always relied on third party support first and then everything else second. So since that is the case Nintendo DEFINITELY needs to lead the way on their own system and guess what? They have, with casualware. That is why you see so many Wii Sports/Wii Fit clones and mini-games on the shelves because third parties believe that this type of software will do the best on the system. So far this has proven to be the case, as you can see proof by looking at what the million sellers (like High School Musical and Carnival Games) have been on the system. If Steven Speilberg were to make an exclusive game for the PS3 do you think it would be anything like Boom Blox? No, so quit acting naive and acknowledge what I'm saying is fact.

[Coral]

I dont think anyone is saying that a Core gamer cant have fun on Wii. But for a Core gamer to have a Wii as their number one system, well i think that that person would be a Nintendo Core gamer, and yes there is a difference. Core gamers found on 360, PS3, and PC would not put up with the bull**** experiences found on Wii. What are those bull**** experiences, shoddy online, lack of stellar core games outside of Nintendos magical franchises, poor storage solutions. The list goes on.

Yes theyre all businesses, but when a business begins to turn its back on what they started out doing and making things worse for their original followers theres a problem. And youre justified to defend them, if you work for them. But once you go home and you want to be taken seriously as a gamer, you cant say their new direction is okay because theyre making money and the other two arent making as much. That doesnt matter to core gamers, and it shouldnt. Nintendo has shown us that they are willing to **** things up to make money. Microsoft hasnt done that yet. When they do, you wont see me defending them unless theyre still churning out amazing core games each month.

[Tanooki]

Funny Epic I must have just imagined up them also leading the way with Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Wario Land Shake It, Wario Ware, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Zelda, and so on. Then again, perhaps those are all casual games and many people got so used to the genres they hadn't noticed. :D

At least Coral's making some good sense there in his paragraph for the most part as I just don't see Nintendo screwing things up for everyone but expanding the market which is fine.

[originalself]

What games have in-house Microsoft devs made again? Viva Pinata, Viva Pinata Trouble In Paradise, Viva Pinata Party Animals, Kameo, and PD0? Real hardcore of them.

Nice. Ignore fable, forza, and halo. :rolleyes: Not too mention all the stuff they publish for other devs like gears of war, blue dragon, crackdown, project gotham, mass effect, and ninja gaiden. I think MS has no issue keeping the core crowd happy.

I will agree that Nintendo is family orientated and has no need nor desire to pursue more mature content. They are not trying to keep up with their old fans. It is much easier to just make new ones.

[Smokey]

You're funny Smokey. I do speak for the majority of core gamers, even more so than I speak for myself. At least in some way I still remain loyal to Nintendo where the majority of core gamers have completely put them out of mind for the better part of 10 years. I could easily name at least 5-10 people here (who play games on a regular basis) who agree with my line of thinking but for the sake of not getting them involved I won't. It's not like I have to anyway, because I'm sure you've seen their posts at one time or another. The truth is that you like to single me out because I speak strongly and also because you don't like me. Well good for you. As long as the subject is on topic and you're not directly insulting me I'm fine with this topic going on for as long as it needs to. So please don't pull that Blokeymon **** on me and assume that I'm going to close the thread. I've hardly lost the argument and even if I had I can admit when I'm wrong, unlike so many of you. Know why? Because I actually have a life and trying to look good on a public game forums is not my sole purpose.

If I'm singling you out, it's because you're being the major supplier of BS, not because I don't like you. I don't even know where you get that idea, but I won't go there.

People that can admit they're wrong don't twist people's words and outright ignore others by claiming they aren't being objective. And that "I have a life, I don't have to impress you, I know my dick is really big in real life, blah blah blah" **** is getting real old, real fast. You can't take the moral high ground, then try and get in one last jab. It makes you seem hypocritical. Not that that hasn't been an issue, but...

Actually, I wouldn't mind if you did close this thread. The article was bull**** to begin with, and it's no shocker to anyone to see how this is going to end.

[MR EPIC]

Yes theyre all businesses, but when a business begins to turn its back on what they started out doing and making things worse for their original followers theres a problem. And youre justified to defend them, if you work for them. But once you go home and you want to be taken seriously as a gamer, you cant say their new direction is okay because theyre making money and the other two arent making as much. That doesnt matter to core gamers, and it shouldnt. Nintendo has shown us that they are willing to **** things up to make money. Microsoft hasnt done that yet. When they do, you wont see me defending them unless theyre still churning out amazing core games each month.

Best paragraph of the thread so far. Nice Job Coral.

[HGW XX/7]

Nice. Ignore fable, forza, and halo. :rolleyes: Not too mention all the stuff they publish for other devs like gears of war, blue dragon, crackdown, project gotham, mass effect, and ninja gaiden. I think MS has no issue keeping the core crowd happy.

I will agree that Nintendo is family orientated and has no need nor desire to pursue more mature content. They are not trying to keep up with their old fans. It is much easier to just make new ones.

I said In house developed, so all those published ones can fly out the window.

I forgot about Halo (don't know how, lol), and wasn't even aware of Forza or Fable being IN-HOUSE devs for Microsoft.

[originalself]

I said In house developed, so all those published ones can fly out the window.

I forgot about Halo (don't know how, lol), and wasn't even aware of Forza or Fable being IN-HOUSE devs for Microsoft.
They sure are. And you should look at everything they publish. Unlike nintendo it shows a commitment to bring in and help the third party developers in order to get the games their target audience wants.

[Smokey]

Yes theyre all businesses, but when a business begins to turn its back on what they started out doing and making things worse for their original followers theres a problem. And youre justified to defend them, if you work for them. But once you go home and you want to be taken seriously as a gamer, you cant say their new direction is okay because theyre making money and the other two arent making as much. That doesnt matter to core gamers, and it shouldnt. Nintendo has shown us that they are willing to **** things up to make money. Microsoft hasnt done that yet. When they do, you wont see me defending them unless theyre still churning out amazing core games each month.

You're lucky Liz hasn't come in here. Businesses will sell their proverbial grandmother if it means turning a profit.

And their new (I use the term because it's convenient, not because it's necessarily accurate) direction IS okay. You guys act like being a casual gamer is a bad thing, like you'll be infected if you associate with them. What's wrong with casual games? What's wrong with casual anything?

And MS hasn't ****ed anything up to make money? I suppose they rushed production of early 360s, knowing that they were faulty, for ****s and giggles, then?

[HGW XX/7]

They sure are. And you should look at everything they publish. Unlike nintendo it shows a commitment to bring in and help the third party developers in order to get the games their target audience wants.

That's good times then.

360 isn't publishing those for the sake of hardcore gamers though. They're publishing them 'cause they know it'll make them ass-tons of money (except Too Human....). Though, yes, it does certainly help third party devs. Just 'cause Nintendo isn't willing to throw millions upon millions at third parties doesn't mean anything. They never really have. Nothing's changed.

[originalself]

Nothing's changed.

I agree. I don't know where the surprise here for some people is. Nintendo has been telling 3rd party devs to suck it before the first nes pcb cooled.

[Coral]

You're lucky Liz hasn't come in here. Businesses will sell their proverbial grandmother if it means turning a profit.

And their new (I use the term because it's convenient, not because it's necessarily accurate) direction IS okay. You guys act like being a casual gamer is a bad thing, like you'll be infected if you associate with them. What's wrong with casual games? What's wrong with casual anything?

And MS hasn't ****ed anything up to make money? I suppose they rushed production of early 360s, knowing that they were faulty, for ****s and giggles, then?

Thats fine if they want to sell their family memebers, buts thats also when we should stop supporting them.


Yes, 360s are made very poorly. But when youre offering the best videos games it doesnt matter. If you want reliable systems thats fine. Buy a Wii and PS3, and stare at them all day. They wont likely break on you, but you wont be playing them either way so it doesnt matter.

Halo 4: Legend of the Red Rings > Mario Shake and Waggle: Adventures in Casual Land

[MR EPIC]

HGW and OS - There is no surprise for me. I'm merely pointing out that it's Nintendo's own doing for the image and game line-up that they've garnered thus far, and that third parties are not to blame.

[Smokey]

Thats fine if they want to sell their family memebers, buts thats also when we should stop supporting them.

Except for a tiny minority, you're advocating the collapse of every major business and not a few smaller businesses, and not just in the video game industry either. For God's sake, MS was built on treachery, backstabbing, and skulduggery.

Yes, 360s are made very poorly. But when youre offering the best videos games it doesnt matter. If you want reliable systems thats fine. Buy a Wii and PS3, and stare at them all day. They wont likely break on you, but you wont be playing them either way so it doesnt matter.

Besides the idea that the PS3 doesn't meet your "awesome video game" requirement is laughable, you're painting a picture of having a working system and nothing to play, or tons of games and nothing to play with. If this was accurate, you'd be screwed either way, so why shell out cash in the first place?

[JValone]

Coral, the PS3 is on equal standing with the 360, your preference between the two comes down completely to personal taste. Like LBP/Disgaea/Valkyria Chronicles/MGS4? Grab PS3. Like Halo 3/Gears 2/Fable/Mass Effect? The 360 is for you. Let's not put the 360 on a pedestal here, it's one of two equally viable options. Multiplatform games have made the difference between the HD consoles superfluous, coming down to only a tiny handful of games. The Wii's lineup deserves criticism, the stack of excellent PS3 games I'm looking at (all from the last four months) says Sony's machine doesn't.

I honestly don't blame Nintendo at all for lack of 3rd party support. They led by example in the first year and a half (all the way up to Brawl/MKWii) and no one followed. In fact there current problem is that they threw everything on the table up front whereas in the past they put a good 3-4 months between quality releases. Now their 2nd wave of traditional games are in the middle of development at the same time and 3rd parties remain disinterested in putting a budget behind anything on the Wii.

The only thing they can do is throw money at publishers to get games (like Microsoft did in the early days of the first Xbox and continues to do to a lesser extent to this day) and they're too pragmatic to do it. It wouldn't gain them market share and it would cut deeply into record profits. I don't blame them for making that decision, it's the right one from a business perspective and they are a business. It just forces their fan base to look elsewhere for the time being, which sucks for our tiny minority. The core gamer has proven in the last two generations they do not support Nintendo. Now that Nintendo has leverage they have decided not to put additional support behind titles to satisfy core gamers, I don't think those two facts are unrelated.

By all means support the HD consoles, I am in agreement that they're superior, but don't act like Microsoft or Sony like you better. They don't, that's ridiculous to even seriously consider. They're sticking with us because they have no viable alternative, if Iwata offered either of them a straight-up gaming division swap there would be zero hesitation. I just hope that when they do go after the Wii's new crowd next generation they come with a more balanced approach than what we've seen from Nintendo. I think they will because doing otherwise would leave them no safety net not to mention all of Microsoft's development talent, and most of Sony's, is rooted firmly in the hardcore segment of the market. This is a copycat industry. Nintendo has what Sony and Microsoft want so they'll be going after it hard starting next generation.

A bit OT, but I have a question: Aren't the new Jasper (chipset) 360s coming soon? I've heard those might solve the failure rate, if that's true it would be huge for Microsoft and I hope they send them out to every 360 owner who ships them a broken machine from here on out.

[Coral]

Reeeeeeeeeeeeewind. My mention of the PS3 has nothing to do with personal taste for either or. What i said was a reflection of my opinion of the PS3 line up while I had my first one. So my mention of PS3 in my last post wasnt appropriate. That said the PS3 and 360 arent on equal grounds when it comes to number of games or exclusives. But this isnt about PS3 vs 360, its its Wii vs the Core Forcused machines.

[Darc Requiem]

JV you hit the nail on the head again, but honestly you are wasting your time here. This is just another thread of gamers claiming to be hardcore. More and more when I see "hardcore" gamer. I think crybaby gamer would be more appropriate. The incessant whining makes me ashamed to be a gamer. I'd take the "hardcore" segment of the market more seriously if their arguments didn't shift like the wind. If you have to say you are hardcore...you really aren't.

[MR EPIC]

The core gamer has proven in the last two generations they do not support Nintendo.

That wouldn't happen to be Nintendo's fault at all now would it?

Darc - If you're not going to take the time to elaborate and are content with random labeling and name calling why don't you just check out some other threads instead of this one?

[Rensa]

Roffle! If I buy a 360 or a PS3 do I get a little badge to show off to my other core gamer friends? Can I fill in a form to send to PR reps informing them that I should now be considered hardcore? Does my penis grow another inch?

[MR EPIC]

The point is that the average Wii gamer is NOT a core gamer. A typical core gamer plays 360, PC, and to a lesser extent PS3. None of us are trying to make boost ourselves into some elite class, but the more that certain people around here refuse to accept that fact the more this subject gets blown out of proportion. I guarantee you that if any of you want to take this debate as far as submitting proof either by sales numbers, surveys over XBL/PSN, or any other method that our side of the argument can provide more facts in favor of our stance.

[Darc Requiem]

That wouldn't happen to be Nintendo's fault at all now would it?

Darc - If you're not going to take the time to elaborate and are content with random labeling and name calling why don't you just check out some other threads instead of this one?

Nintendo has not nor ever will be Sega. Sega produced games in all genres. Nintendo has always produced a certain type of game. If you've gotten sick of those type of games and have moved on then you have left Nintendo and not the other way around. If Nintendo produced nothing but mini-games and abandoned their traditional titles, you could say they've abandoned their fan base but they have not. Nintendo's core fan base and the "hardcore" gamers are two separate entities for the most part.

Also, I post where I want. If you don't like my opinion tough. If I was posting a series one liners, fine. I'm not. I usually make long winded posts and I didn't see the need to regurgitate what another poster, JValone, stated two posts above mine. I feel that the "hardcore" gamers are throwing a tantrum because they are getting their way. That is relevant to the topic as it gets the reason why we keep getting more and more of these editorials to begin with. Was that a detailed enough for you or do I have to write a ten page dissertation? :dry:

[Rensa]

The point is that the average Wii gamer is NOT a core gamer. A typical core gamer plays 360, PC, and to a lesser extent PS3. None of us are trying to make boost ourselves into some elite class, but the more that certain people around here refuse to accept that fact the more this subject gets blown out of proportion. I guarantee you that if any of you want to take this debate as far as submitting proof either by sales numbers, surveys over XBL/PSN, or any other method that our side of the argument can provide more facts in favor of our stance.
No, the point is that the terms 'core' and 'casual' are really only used by marketers to describe the purchasing habits of demographics (and in a very lazy way, no less). To jump up and down, saying to people, "I'm sure you're having fun on your Wii, but it doesn't matter how much you play because you're still not hardcore!" makes you look like a petulant five-year-old straining to reach for a gold star.

So, sure, whatever; you're hardcore and I'm not. I hope it brings you some measure of peace :)

[Coral]

Roffle! If I buy a 360 or a PS3 do I get a little badge to show off to my other core gamer friends? Can I fill in a form to send to PR reps informing them that I should now be considered hardcore? Does my penis grow another inch?

Your penis might grow an extra inch which helps, but you still wouldnt be considered hardcore as you need to be at least 6 inches to be considered for Hardcore membership. Maybe if you bought 5 360s you could add 5 inches and bring yourself upto par.

[Rensa]

The saddest thing, Coral, is that I can't even tell the extent of your irony there :rolleyes:

[Tanooki]

Rensa and Darc those are some funny and dead on accurate albeit very short takes on basically the vocal minority of the 'hardcore', they whine and whine a lot and like to point fingers and drop insults against the system that leads in a business perspective. Afterall the gaming industry is a business, not a pet project soap box. I wish those who just don't like what the Wii offers outside of its strong 1st party mascotry would just shut up, ignore it, grow up and move on entirely instead of saying they've moved on, but endlessly come back to take shots and complain like it somehow effects them. If it did effect you as a Wii owner, sell the goddamn box to someone who will be greatful and enjoy it. There is no core, hardcore, or casual...it's marketing jargon some people like to abuse to basically say they're better than someone else and it's sick.

[Smokey]

Roffle! If I buy a 360 or a PS3 do I get a little badge to show off to my other core gamer friends? Can I fill in a form to send to PR reps informing them that I should now be considered hardcore? Does my penis grow another inch?

That ****'s been sigged for 1337 counts of AWESOME.

The point is that the average Wii gamer is NOT a core gamer. A typical core gamer plays 360, PC, and to a lesser extent PS3. None of us are trying to make boost ourselves into some elite class, but the more that certain people around here refuse to accept that fact the more this subject gets blown out of proportion. I guarantee you that if any of you want to take this debate as far as submitting proof either by sales numbers, surveys over XBL/PSN, or any other method that our side of the argument can provide more facts in favor of our stance.

1) How is claiming that playing Wii makes you non-core/casual not qualify as boosting yourself into an elite class?
2) Sales numbers of what, exactly? Whatever you're talking about, it would have to be something very specific and narrow. Remember, Nintendo's the one leading the pack in profits.
3) Surveys from XBL/PSN? How does that objectively prove your point?

[Tanooki]

Well they're not the leaders in FPS, sports, and a few other genres. You could go tunnel vision that way with it. :D

[Smokey]

Hmm, could be. Given that Nintendo doesn't even focus on those genres (doesn't really need 'em, actually), it isn't really conclusive, but that could be what he's talking about.

[Tanooki]

Well those I've noticed seem to somehow make you a hardcore gamer if you're very deep into those things on and offline where applicable. FPS, sports, and others like racing, 3d fighters, and so on. I was being more smartassy about the answer I gave, but those seem to somehow give people claims to being hardcore, and the Wii lacks those greatly.

[MR EPIC]

1) How is claiming that playing Wii makes you non-core/casual not qualify as boosting yourself into an elite class?
2) Sales numbers of what, exactly? Whatever you're talking about, it would have to be something very specific and narrow. Remember, Nintendo's the one leading the pack in profits.
3) Surveys from XBL/PSN? How does that objectively prove your point?

Basically I'm saying that I believe so firmly in the point I'm making that given reasonable criteria I could prove my side more than you could prove yours. I'm not sure you would accept the truth even if Nintendo themselves admitted that their gamers are different from traditional core gamers but if you have some suggestions I'm up for the task. Again, I'm not out to belittle anyone's gaming habits nor am I seeking to boost myself into a class which I never labeled myself as throughout my entire gaming career. What I am trying to do is make a distinction between the different types of gamers who currently make up the industry, which surprisingly enough keeps in line with the opening article of this thread.

[Smokey]

Basically I'm saying that I believe so firmly in the point I'm making that given reasonable criteria I could prove my side more than you could prove yours.

Fanaticism always make you look right in your own eyes, but that view is rarely shared by anyone else. Especially when you narrow the argument to fit your own twisted reality. When you have to make conditions like that, it ought to be readily apparent that you don't have a case anymore.

I'm not sure you would accept the truth even if Nintendo themselves admitted that their gamers are different from traditional core gamers but if you have some suggestions I'm up for the task. Again, I'm not out to belittle anyone's gaming habits nor am I seeking to boost myself into a class which I never labeled myself as throughout my entire gaming career. What I am trying to do is make a distinction between the different types of gamers who currently make up the industry, which surprisingly enough keeps in line with the opening article of this thread.

First of all, there aren't distinctly different types of gamers, there's just one: gamer. Like Rensa said, the distinctions are just feeble marketing ploys. This entire thread is about calling Nintendo fans unreasoning fanboys, and all of the belittlement and ridicule that goes along with it. And why you would make such a big deal about being hardcore without aspiring to be hardcore, I don't know, unless somebody that is hardcore has you by the balls.

What with the opening article being a load of horse**** to begin with, I'm not surprised that your efforts reflect that.

[MR EPIC]

Fanaticism always make you look right in your own eyes, but that view is rarely shared by anyone else. Especially when you narrow the argument to fit your own twisted reality. When you have to make conditions like that, it ought to be readily apparent that you don't have a case anymore.

Ouch, must be that time of the month for somebody. I never set any conditions. As a matter of fact I offered that task to you, so that when I prove you wrong it would be within your own boundaries.

First of all, there aren't distinctly different types of gamers, there's just one: gamer. Like Rensa said, the distinctions are just feeble marketing ploys.

This is incorrect. With any hobby or interest, terms like "hardcore", "fanatical" and "casual" define one's level of depth or commitment to it. These words are used millions of times a day in the real world and they are no different when used to describe gamers and their habits. Just because people may have abused these words and/or used them in derogatory ways, it doesn't mean that these are not valid and pertinent to the discussion.

Oh well, guess we're done here. Another flawless victory for Mr EPiC.

[Rensa]

To be clear, I'm not saying there's no difference in the way you or Coral spends or games compared to me. I'm just saying that the desire to inform everyone every five minutes that you're a better or more hardcore gamer than them is incredibly childish.

[MR EPIC]

To be clear, I'm not saying there's no difference in the way you or Coral spends or games compared to me. I'm just saying that the desire to inform everyone every five minutes that you're a better or more hardcore gamer than them is incredibly childish.

Hows about you read not only the opening posts and the most recent ones, but all the ones in between to be clearly informed. The article talks about Sony and MS not needing to worry about Nintendo because they're clearly going after a casual/non-gamer demographic. We've been talking about this for a number of pages now so I don't know where you get off accusing me of trying to be more or less hardcore than anyone else. This is what the subject was based on and this is what we're discussing. If you've got a problem with Coral that's between you two, but don't clump me in with that and in turn lose sight of what I'm saying.

[Tanooki]

No I think he was spot on, Coral didn't even need to be in that sentence. He's pointing out that in some of your posts you seem to just be accusing anyone who still likes Wii of being less of a gamer and so on than those who use any other system (home/portable.) It's pretty self destructive when there is a deal of things even on Wii that a strong gamer can get into and be happy with and not just the once a week/one game every few months types. Seriously smokey and rensa are right, the entire hard, soft/core, casual, etc thing are just fantasy tags in any market just to try and get more money out of people by targeting advertising and the rest. Short of those who just don't care, don't like a genre, hate games, or are just aesthetically challenged anyone with effort can do and get into most games. We've already burned the whole hardcore thing to death as is because you can either have a crap ton of games and systems, or you can be a hardcore nut with like the 10 games you have because you've mastered them to death and can asskick basically anyone. It's just a stupid tag.

[Rensa]

I know the topic. From the original topic it swung to the (totally valid) idea that the Wii's audience is different to the PS3 or the 360's and hence the sorts of games popular on those consoles wouldn't do as well on the Wii (with a brief stopover by you on the idea that the article is irrelevent because 'we' - core gamers? - play the Wii much less than other consoles). That's all fine, because you were specifically targeting those who were defending Ninty's generally ****ty library (which I completely agree with).

My beef is particularly concerned with the posts following this:
You don't need to own a 360 or a PS3 to be a hardcore gamer Epic.
It's a shame you even responded, given that isn't what you were trying to say in the first place.
When easily 85% of the must have games of the year are not on your system, there is no way you can justify being "a hardcore gamer"...
Ken is right. Sorry Jeff.
And yes, you do have to play 360 or PS3 to be considered a current core gamer. There are exceptions where somebody may have a really busy schedule and only have time for handhelds, but nobody playing Wii only is a hardcore gamer.
What I'm being derisive of is giving this idea of being a core gamer more credence than it deserves, because even as a marketing term it should only be used in the broadest, vaguest of senses. You guys start out fine but quickly end up bandying the term about to separate yourselves from people who play other platforms or have different playing habits. I don't deny that, in a general sense, there's probably some truth to this. But the term and the way you use it are both loaded with ugly contempt.

[Smokey]

Ouch, must be that time of the month for somebody. I never set any conditions. As a matter of fact I offered that task to you, so that when I prove you wrong it would be within your own boundaries.

Pathetic attempt at an insult aside, "Given reasonable criteria" is a condition, and a subjective one at that, entirely dependent on what you want to consider reasonable. I'm not going to argue with you when all you're going to do is cherrypick what you want to argue, move the goalposts, and dismiss me as irrational or unqualified.

This is incorrect. With any hobby or interest, terms like "hardcore", "fanatical" and "casual" define one's level of depth or commitment to it. These words are used millions of times a day in the real world and they are no different when used to describe gamers and their habits. Just because people may have abused these words and/or used them in derogatory ways, it doesn't mean that these are not valid and pertinent to the discussion.

It is precisely because people abuse and misuse them that you can't objectively use them. There are no set definitions; it's all based on opinion. You may think something is hardcore/casual/neither, and someone will disagree with you, and you'll both argue valid or semi-valid points 'til you're blue in the face. Neither of you will win because there is no objective third party stating a clear, concise, and accepted definition of those terms. So why bother if you're attempting to pursue an objective discussion?

[MR EPIC]

I wasn't intending on cherrypicking, goalpost moving, or dismissing anything you had to say Smokey. The reason I said "reasonable boundaries" is because I've seen how you debate with others in these non-gaming forums and many times the only thing you guys will accept as proof is some written document, which of course in this case isn't possible to provide. There just aren't clear-cut, readily available stat sheets on different type of gamers. I guess at this point it's best to just let this portion of the discussion go, because it's becoming more and more difficult to get my point across without either offending somebody or having them assume that I'm looking down on them.

As I've said many times before on these forums, I personally have never considered myself to be a "hardcore gamer" nor did I ever use such labels to describe my habits. If somebody tried to pin me down to a word I probably would have said that I'm a gaming enthusiast and left it at that. Hell, I'm not even that good at certain genres of games so I certainly have nothing to feel elite about or even to put myself on a pedestal for.

[Tanooki]

Epic I think we know you're not a hardcore gamer by whatever that term really should stand for, at least I do from over the years. I think it's the recent shift in tone just being very down on the Wii that's coming out in these responses to your posts. You may not be intending it, but the way the words are put there intent or not is coming off basically saying if you don't have one of the 2 HD systems and/or use at least 1-2 other systems to supplement having a Wii you have no way of being a real/true/hardcore whatever 'elite' tag you want gamer which is just not true. Wii has many things to get 'hardcore' over, it's just not the same things the other 2 home systems have.

It's all about tone I think, at least I think Smokey would agree to that reading his responses.

[Smokey]

^You got it, it does sound very elitist. But I am willing to let it go. We'd better find something else to argue about, though, or my head will 'splode.:P

[MR EPIC]

Wow, at last I think you guys finally got where I was coming from. And all it took was a change in tone, imagine that. But yeah, I may buy and play a lot of games but I've never given myself a label or considered myself elite by any stretch. Hell, neither JGZ nor Rensa play games nearly as much as me but I guarantee you they will dump all over me when it comes to Super Smash Brothers and even Mario Kart. Snaking FTL! ;)

[Rensa]

S'all good, amigoooooooos... Jesus, I've had enough caffeine to take down a rhino :D

[Tanooki]

Finally got? I knew where you were coming from, but your tone sucked and it would lead anyone to easily believe the way you made stuff sound was just how it was.

[MR EPIC]

So because you didn't like my tone, whether or not you agreed or understood my stance, you weren't going to acknowledge it for that reason? I don't understand that line of thinking at all.

[Smokey]

I don't think he's speaking for himself so much as for other people, myself included. The way you were speaking could easily lead people to believe that you considered yourself a hardcore gamer.

[MR EPIC]

I can understand that, but I still don't get the part about not acknowledging or agreeing with someone simply because of how they came across in delivering their side of the argument. If you flat out don't agree or see where the person is coming from that's fine, but he clearly said he knew where I was coming from all along.

[Tanooki]

Smokey is a winner, was speaking for the unspoken. A 'noob' that comes across will think you're a stuck up hardcore gamer with an anti-Nintendo chip on your shoulder just out to make a bitter and vindictive case every chance that can be had. I know what your tastes and intent are, but I've also been around you now for what...4 years?