Support NeoGAF

[Sharp]

The person who does those videos was posting at GAF for awhile. I remember him/her doing nothing but advertise these videos though.

 

[HK-47]

The person who does those videos was posting at GAF for awhile. I remember him/her doing nothing but advertise these videos though.

Yes, a total fangirl(boy?)

It was annoying

 

[MisterHero]

Yes, a total fangirl(boy?)

It was annoying

well the gifs don't make themselves

 

[HK-47]

well the gifs don't make themselves

What does that have to do with being a shill

 

[MisterHero]

What does that have to do with being a shill

egging it on perhaps

 

[dammitmattt]

The situation Sony and Microsoft are facing today was one Iwata warned about prior to the Wii launch.

"Though I'm aware this may be misunderstood, Nintendo is not working on a next-generation console. "Next-generation" implies that the console is an extension of previous installments. We believe that extending our current line will not lead to larger markets, and could possibly even lead to smaller markets. We need to introduce innovative appeal if we want to increase the number of people enjoying games." - Iwata 2006

Iwata realized that as the market narrowed it's focus, it risked losing casual gamers "on the fringes" of the market. He also warned that advances in graphics had reached a "saturation point". Most gamers misinterpreted this to mean that he was insinuating graphics had gone as far as they could go. However, he was not referring to visual fidelity, but to diminishing financial returns. Each leap in graphical technology - both for the developers and consumers - requires a progressively larger leap in cost. Nintendo stepped out of the technological race because they realized that they would not get a substantial return on investment.

I don't want to argue whether Iwata's approach with the Wii was right or not. Obviously, it has worked incredibly well for Nintendo.

However, what I will dispute is that the 360 (I'll leave Sony out of this one because they were trying to push a new video format) narrowed its focus. The 360 has MUCH more casual appeal than the Xbox at a much earlier point in its lifetime. After 2 1/2 years, there is a much wider variety of games including games with crossover appeal like Madden (definitive version), Guitar Hero, Rock Band, COD4, Halo 3, and more. On top of this, there are plenty of games with casual appeal on XBLA. The 360 has a much simpler and more user-friendly online system than its competition with strong parental controls and a family-friendly video marketplace. I would also argue that the games are no more hardcore than they were last gen, and in many ways are simpler with better tutorials than ever. The 360 is outselling the original system at double the price point. Who knows how much better it would be selling at $299 or less. Aside from the (rather huge) issue of the RROD, the 360 has to be considered a success. It's (finally) profitable and it has stolen a huge amount of marketshare and mindshare from Sony.

Obviously, hindsight tells us that Microsoft didn't go casual enough to obtain the level of mainstream success that Nintendo has had (and the high price tag doesn't help at all), but I don't see how you can say that Microsoft went less casual.

I can not argue with your anecdotal evidence. Only sales will bare out whether or not the Wii can successfully move up market, turning some of their new customers into more avid gamers. But with regard to the bold, I would argue that price was only a small factor. The low price of the Wii is just one of the many features that makes it appealing to non-gamers. The low price is representative of Nintendo's philosophy of having "low barriers of entry". The Wii is easy to understand, easy to play, and easy to buy. However, the price of Wii consoles on ebay a year and a half after launch, indicate that a low price is not the Wii's most important feature.

I agree with you completely. I'm getting sick of the "low price"argument. The Wii isn't cheap. It's more expensive than any other major system had been at this point in their lifecycles prior to this generation. It's only "cheap" in comparison to the 360 and PS3. I would argue that it would be doing just as well at $299 because people just want the damn thing. In the end, that's all that matters. Desire is the number one reason people want the Wii and it just so happens that the price is not a barrier to entry. However, people are fooling themselves if they think that the mass market is picking up the Wii because it's cheaper than the 360 or PS3.

 

[Redd]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

I didn't like it. Yeah the gifs were funny but these are the type of fans I despise, makes the rest of us look bad imo.

 

[MisterHero]

I didn't like it. Yeah the gifs were funny but these are the type of fans I despise, makes the rest of us look bad imo.

What?

We killed GTA!

Good times are to be had by all!

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I don't want to argue whether Iwata's approach with the Wii was right or not. Obviously, it has worked incredibly well for Nintendo.

However, what I will dispute is that the 360 (I'll leave Sony out of this one because they were trying to push a new video format) narrowed its focus. The 360 has MUCH more casual appeal than the Xbox at a much earlier point in its lifetime. After 2 1/2 years, there is a much wider variety of games including games with crossover appeal like Madden (definitive version), Guitar Hero, Rock Band, COD4, Halo 3, and more. On top of this, there are plenty of games with casual appeal on XBLA. The 360 has a much simpler and more user-friendly online system than its competition with strong parental controls and a family-friendly video marketplace. I would also argue that the games are no more hardcore than they were last gen, and in many ways are simpler with better tutorials than ever. The 360 is outselling the original system at double the price point. Who knows how much better it would be selling at $299 or less. Aside from the (rather huge) issue of the RROD, the 360 has to be considered a success. It's (finally) profitable and it has stolen a huge amount of marketshare and mindshare from Sony.

Obviously, hindsight tells us that Microsoft didn't go casual enough to obtain the level of mainstream success that Nintendo has had (and the high price tag doesn't help at all), but I don't see how you can say that Microsoft went less casual.

While I agree that Microsoft increased its focus, it increased it from a narrow laser-beam from the XBOX to something only a little more varied. I'd hardly call what the 360 is doing now much different from what the original XBOX achieved, shy of Eastern support.

 

[dammitmattt]

While I agree that Microsoft increased its focus, it increased it from a narrow laser-beam from the XBOX to something only a little more varied. I'd hardly call what the 360 is doing now much different from what the original XBOX achieved, shy of Eastern support.

You just throw your opinion out there without addressing any of my points or providing any support. I went point-by-point (great online, more casual games, XBLA arcade, marketplace, etc.). I'd argue that it's more casually-focused than any last-gen system at this point in their lifecycles if you judge by game catalog and features.

Of course the price isn't casual-friendly. We all know that. But other than that, they've made a lot of strides.

Maybe I'm just a bit biased because I've spent so much time playing Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Scene It, sports games, and tons of XBLA games with people who really aren't gamers. I've got all three systems, and until Mario Kart and Boom Blox came out recently , the 360 had been the casual system of choice for my friends once the Wii Sports high died down. I dunno...maybe you have to be an owner to truly see it...and I can't remember if you are one or not.

EDIT: Also, to go off on another tangent and go back to talking about focus (aka game lineup) outside of casual appeal, the 360 has made MASSIVE strides over the Xbox. It's the JRPG system of choice this gen and probably will be for at least another year. That's just one of many examples.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

You just throw your opinion out there without addressing any of my points or providing any support. I went point-by-point (great online, more casual games, XBLA arcade, marketplace, etc.). I'd argue that it's more casually-focused than any last-gen system at this point in their lifecycles if you judge by game catalog and features.

Of course the price isn't casual-friendly. We all know that. But other than that, they've made a lot of strides.

Maybe I'm just a bit biased because I've spent so much time playing Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Scene It, sports games, and tons of XBLA games with people who really aren't gamers. I've got all three systems, and until Mario Kart and Boom Blox came out recently , the 360 had been the casual system of choice for my friends once the Wii Sports high died down. I dunno...maybe you have to be an owner to truly see it...and I can't remember if you are one or not.

EDIT: Also, to go off on another tangent and go back to talking about focus (aka game lineup) outside of casual appeal, the 360 has made MASSIVE strides over the Xbox. It's the JRPG system of choice this gen and probably will be for at least another year. That's just one of many examples.

Admittedly I was only focusing on the one point you made about the 360 being more varied than the OG XBOX. However, price is the last thing I was really referring to; while there has been a change in library from last generation to this one, Microsoft's focus on a whole (the 17-29 aged male hardcore gamer) has NOT changed. In fact, the only change I can directly attribute to MS personally instead of third parties was the reaching out to Japanese development houses for more even content. Also, I believe it's worth noting that while the 360 is host to varied gameplay experiences, said experiences tend to not be exclusive to the system; for instance, were I still a PS2 holdout Guitar Hero 3, Rock Band, and countless sports games would hardly entice me to get a 360 as I can still experience the game on PS2 (or the Wii and PS3, which is also a problem for MS).

As for me personally, I was once an owner of a 360, however I found that as a person who cares little for heavy online gaming and shooters, the 360 library really wasn't doing much for me, especially since it became readily apparent that all the games I want for the system found their way onto the PC (read: GeoW and Mass Effect).

 

[kame-sennin]

However, what I will dispute is that the 360 (I'll leave Sony out of this one because they were trying to push a new video format) narrowed its focus. The 360 has MUCH more casual appeal than the Xbox at a much earlier point in its lifetime...

Obviously, hindsight tells us that Microsoft didn't go casual enough to obtain the level of mainstream success that Nintendo has had (and the high price tag doesn't help at all), but I don't see how you can say that Microsoft went less casual.

I was referring mostly to the hardware, especially concerning the issue of "overshooting the market". The complexity of the hardware and the price means that the 360 is primarily targeted at the hardcore. I will not argue that the 360 has begun to broaden its software library - in fact I argued just that. But the problem for Microsoft is that they are broadening from the core (minority) outwards, or from the top of the market downwards. As we have seen, catering to the needs of avid gamers first is an expensive proposition that provides diminishing returns.

 

[Deku]

I was referring mostly to the hardware, especially concerning the issue of "overshooting the market". The complexity of the hardware and the price means that the 360 is primarily targeted at the hardcore. I will not argue that the 360 has begun to broaden its software library - in fact I argued just that. But the problem for Microsoft is that they are broadening from the core (minority) outwards, or from the top of the market downwards. As we have seen, catering to the needs of avid gamers first is an expensive proposition that provides diminishing returns.

Didn't this work for Sony and Nintendo before? I don't think broadening from the core outwards is the real problem here, assuming we define core as 'early adopters who are interested in games' and not the more vaporous and ill conceived 'teh mature FPS crowd'

 

[justchris]

In terms of "overshooting" you probably have a point. But Microsoft and Sony could never have foreseen the terrible economy we have today. If the economy was in high gear, many of those DS and Wii dollars would instead be PS3 and Xbox 360 dollars. The Wii did benefit from a novel control feature which created its massive hype, but more of its enduring success will be based on its relative price and how the rest of the economy fares. It's a fad for the marginal videogamers who can afford any system and it (along with the DS) is a cost effective solution for the parental units of younger gamers. What? It's a fad for the fringe gamers? Yes. None of my friends who bought a Wii after not having bought a console in 10 yrs play it at all except when a few friends are over who haven't yet seen one.

Anecdotal evidence is not proof. I would argue that this plays entirely into Nintendo's hands. A marginal gamer who will only purchase one console and purchases a Wii is a gamer Nintendo hasn't lost to MS or Sony.

What's more, you've said these gamers haven't sold their systems, they keep them and pull them out when company is over. Assuming kame-sennin is correct about Nintendo's plans, as they move up-market, they will begin to develop marketing campaigns to entice these 'lapsed Wii gamers' to try new experiences, both hardcore and casual.

As far as Nintendo is concerned, as long as you have a Wii, you are a potential customer. They don't expect you to buy every game, they just keep trying until they find games you will buy.

Finally, the "moving up market corporation and consumer" alike trend is something that might happen in a more mature industry. In videogames each of the Big 3 is in it to win this generation, not plant long term seeds for the next, or next-next generation. The winners and losers are still changing month to month - they are no super established undisputed market leaders. The good news for all of us hardcore gamers is we are in an exciting phase of explosive growth that will be fun as hell.

I disagree. Everything Nintendo has said publicly in their marketing, interviews and rhetoric has indicated a very long view of where they want to take the industry as a whole. Their goal is not to win this generation, in fact, I would contend that it was never Nintendo's goal to "win". Their goal, from the very beginning, was to expand the gaming market, to target consumers who were not, for whatever reason, starting to game, or continuing to game. From this perspective, they didn't have to win, they just had to hold their own, they'd still make money hand over fist, since they'd primarily be targetting users who would have a Wii only. Them beating the pants off the competition is just icing on the cake.

However, what I will dispute is that the 360 (I'll leave Sony out of this one because they were trying to push a new video format) narrowed its focus. The 360 has MUCH more casual appeal than the Xbox at a much earlier point in its lifetime. After 2 1/2 years, there is a much wider variety of games including games with crossover appeal like Madden (definitive version), Guitar Hero, Rock Band, COD4, Halo 3, and more. On top of this, there are plenty of games with casual appeal on XBLA. The 360 has a much simpler and more user-friendly online system than its competition with strong parental controls and a family-friendly video marketplace. I would also argue that the games are no more hardcore than they were last gen, and in many ways are simpler with better tutorials than ever. The 360 is outselling the original system at double the price point. Who knows how much better it would be selling at $299 or less. Aside from the (rather huge) issue of the RROD, the 360 has to be considered a success. It's (finally) profitable and it has stolen a huge amount of marketshare and mindshare from Sony.

Obviously, hindsight tells us that Microsoft didn't go casual enough to obtain the level of mainstream success that Nintendo has had (and the high price tag doesn't help at all), but I don't see how you can say that Microsoft went less casual.

You are right, the Xbox 360 is an improvement in every single way over the Xbox from a business perspective (well, except hardware reliability). However, I don't think the problem was a problem of not going casual enough, so much as it was that MS overshot the casual market. The casual market does not buy $400 consoles. But MS was following the normal top-down model kame-senning was talking about. Had Nintendo not entered with a bottom-up model, and captured the casual market from the get go, I think MS' attempt to capture the casual market would be working a lot better. In this case, MS overshot the casual market, and Nintendo swooped in and grabbed them before MS could work it's way down to targetting that market.

Didn't this work for Sony and Nintendo before? I don't think broadening from the core outwards is the real problem here, assuming we define core as 'early adopters who are interested in games' and not the more vaporous and ill conceived 'teh mature FPS crowd'

NES targeted the casual and worked its way to the hardcore who were burned out on Atari. Everything since the Genesis has done it the other way round though.

 

[Deku]

I don't know how the NES was marketed and I did not live its launch. All accounts I found was that the industry was non active so Nintendo just went in, released the NES in test markets, did well and went national.

They caught a lot of first time gamers, family and kids who later became hardcore enthusiasts of videogames as the generation wore on. But I've never heard that the existing hardcore Atari generation gamers were somehow converted at a later time. They probably broke for the NES just like every demographic out there.

 

[dammitmattt]

As one of the many people in line overnight for a Wii, my experience was that the Wii launch was OVERWHELMINGLY driven by the hardcore Nintendo fans and Zelda. Wii Sports was an afterthought....for about a week and then everyone (meaning non-gamers) realized how awesome it was and the myth was born....and keeps going today.

However, to say that the Wii started with the casuals is completely wrong. It just happened to rope them in in record time.

 

[Deku]

As one of the many people in line overnight for a Wii, my experience was that the Wii launch was OVERWHELMINGLY driven by the hardcore Nintendo fans and Zelda. Wii Sports was an afterthought....for about a week and then everyone (meaning non-gamers) realized how awesome it was and the myth was born....and keeps going today.

However, to say that the Wii started with the casuals is completely wrong. It just happened to rope them in in record time.

I'm not sure I agree.

Having one group line-up on day one, versus another group find out about it weeks later (the great thanksgiving avon call) doesn't impeach the argument that Nintendo got the casuals early.

Had the Wii been a complete disaster commercially, the crowds you described would have still lined up for it on day one, but no one else would be there after the fact. And we'd be talking about how Nintendo didn't get the masses outside of the core base onboard with the platform.

The idea that they got casuals to buyin early isn't saying they got them to buy it on day 1 or even day 2. Nintendo sold out their entire shipment and if you go by the 1 day metric, it would be a world record. Sales don't happen like that so discussion about 'early' is relative to the time it takes to accumulate/sell out a shipment.

I suspect the discussion has the implicit premise of 'launch window' rather than launch day.

 

[Saint Gregory]

I don't know how the NES was marketed and I did not live its launch. All accounts I found was that the industry was non active so Nintendo just went in, released the NES in test markets, did well and went national.

They caught a lot of first time gamers, family and kids who later became hardcore enthusiasts of videogames as the generation wore on. But I've never heard that the existing hardcore Atari generation gamers were somehow converted at a later time. They probably broke for the NES just like every demographic out there.

I remember getting my NES vividly (I had my Dad take me to get it when it came out in Oct/Nov '85) and it was advertised heavily, at least in New York.

The commercials featured R.O.B. IRC and it had me in a pre-teen frenzy.

Edit: And while the market was crashed, it wasn't entirely dead. I had an Intelivision at the time right before NES came out and I remember getting shovelware for it on a regular basis.

 

[dammitmattt]

I'm not sure I agree.

Having one group line-up on day one, versus another group find out about it weeks later (the great thanksgiving avon call) doesn't impeach the argument that Nintendo got the casuals early.

Had the Wii been a complete disaster commercially, the crowds you described would have still lined up for it on day one, but no one else would be there after the fact. And we'd be talking about how Nintendo didn't get the masses outside of the core base onboard with the platform.

The idea that they got casuals to buyin early isn't saying they got them to buy it on day 1 or even day 2. Nintendo sold out their entire shipment and if you go by the 1 day metric, it would be a world record. Sales don't happen like that so discussion about 'early' is relative to the time it takes to accumulate/sell out a shipment.

I suspect the discussion has the implicit premise of 'launch window' rather than launch day.

The argument was bottom up, which supposed that they started with the casuals and worked their way to the hardcore. That's not true. They started with the Nintendo hardcore (and some casuals of course) and worked their way to more casuals (and some hardcores of course).

It's still the same general idea, but it just happened incredibly fast. Don't forget that the majority of the initial "casual" sales were really just parents buying it for Christmas gifts for their kids who already wanted it. It's not like they roped in this huge group of non-gamers on day one. To get that level of appeal ALWAYS takes time.

 

[Kunan]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

wow that was awesome :lol

 

[MisterHero]

The argument was bottom up, which supposed that they started with the casuals and worked their way to the hardcore. That's not true. They started with the Nintendo hardcore (and some casuals of course) and worked their way to more casuals (and some hardcores of course).

It's still the same general idea, but it just happened incredibly fast. Don't forget that the majority of the initial "casual" sales were really just parents buying it for Christmas gifts for their kids who already wanted it. It's not like they roped in this huge group of non-gamers on day one. To get that level of appeal ALWAYS takes time.

haha you keep on believing that.

most Nintendo games since the NES have always appealed to everyone. now they are just making that more obvious than before. so yes, you are right in that it 'always takes time'. but :lol @ but but kids and fanboys

so what if +5 million people bought Zelda TP when it launched? what else were they going to get, WiiSports came with the system.

 

[Deku]

The argument was bottom up, which supposed that they started with the casuals and worked their way to the hardcore. That's not true. They started with the Nintendo hardcore (and some casuals of course) and worked their way to more casuals (and some hardcores of course).

It's still the same general idea, but it just happened incredibly fast. Don't forget that the majority of the initial "casual" sales were really just parents buying it for Christmas gifts for their kids who already wanted it. It's not like they roped in this huge group of non-gamers on day one. To get that level of appeal ALWAYS takes time.

I think they got the argument right. You're never going to get one demographic to buy something then another in perfect sequence.

The point being made is that aside from the fans who would always line up for every Nintendo and gaming hardware release, Nintendo got the casuals to buy in early.

Remember all the talk on GAF about how 'you can walk in and buy one?. They were made in reference to how GameCube or Dreamcast performed. The Wii sold out and continued to be sold out since then.

You're arguing that because there was a significant core gamer segment who lined up for it on day 1, it means they must have started with core gamers. But I'd point out they would have lined up anyways, just because it's Nintendo and because its a new gaming console launching.

You're conflating day 1 launch crowds type of people who are core gamers to the broader population of gaming enthusiats, many of whom refused to buy a Wii early on and are just starting to pick one up as the software they want to play have increased.

 

[justchris]

I don't know how the NES was marketed and I did not live its launch. All accounts I found was that the industry was non active so Nintendo just went in, released the NES in test markets, did well and went national.

They caught a lot of first time gamers, family and kids who later became hardcore enthusiasts of videogames as the generation wore on. But I've never heard that the existing hardcore Atari generation gamers were somehow converted at a later time. They probably broke for the NES just like every demographic out there.

The NES was originally marketed as a "toy", because video games were kind of looked down upon during that time. Once they proved they could sell in test markets, they changed their advertising to focus on the video game aspects, and entirely dropped the toy image (and poor R.O.B. with it).

The argument was bottom up, which supposed that they started with the casuals and worked their way to the hardcore. That's not true. They started with the Nintendo hardcore (and some casuals of course) and worked their way to more casuals (and some hardcores of course).

It's still the same general idea, but it just happened incredibly fast. Don't forget that the majority of the initial "casual" sales were really just parents buying it for Christmas gifts for their kids who already wanted it. It's not like they roped in this huge group of non-gamers on day one. To get that level of appeal ALWAYS takes time.

Well, no real life application ever follows a perfect model. To follow that perfect model would be pretty much impossible, because they had to target the 'Nintendo faithful' to get the system into homes, so that they could entice their friends with Wii Sports. Twilight Princess was basically a Trojan Horse to get Zelda fans to own, and display, Wii Sports.

By the same token, MS & Sony don't follow the top down model perfectly, but it reflects the general direction of their planning and mangement, as the bottom up model reflects Nintendo's.

 

[dammitmattt]

I'm not going to quote all three of you, but all three of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, which is that the Wii isn't going the opposite of the 360/PS3 like some people are stating. It started off more casual than most (if not all systems) and is only getting more casual. That goes against the argument that it's starting off casual and then pulling in the hardcore.

THAT was the argument I was refuting. You're all taking things and spinning them around all while ignoring the original point.

 

[justchris]

I'm not going to quote all three of you, but all three of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, which is that the Wii isn't going the opposite of the 360/PS3 like some people are stating. It started off more casual than most (if not all systems) and is only getting more casual. That goes against the argument that it's starting off casual and then pulling in the hardcore.

THAT was the argument I was refuting. You're all taking things and spinning them around all while ignoring the original point.

Well, the argument, as it stands, is that Nintendo is still in the casual phase, and that they will shade more and more towards the core as time goes on.

Perhaps a better model might be reprsented by a bell curve, core-to-casual-to-core?

 

[Olaeh]

That video really was great, lol.

 

[dammitmattt]

Well, the argument, as it stands, is that Nintendo is still in the casual phase, and that they will shade more and more towards the core as time goes on.

Perhaps a better model might be reprsented by a bell curve, core-to-casual-to-core?

Why would you think it would shed more towards the core? Money issues aside, the core are always the early adopters. Why would a bunch of casual gamers jumping on Wii Sports and Wii Fit persuade hardcore gamers to jump in?

No one has provided any logical reasoning to support this.

 

[Deku]

I'm not going to quote all three of you, but all three of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, which is that the Wii isn't going the opposite of the 360/PS3 like some people are stating. It started off more casual than most (if not all systems) and is only getting more casual. That goes against the argument that it's starting off casual and then pulling in the hardcore.

THAT was the argument I was refuting. You're all taking things and spinning them around all while ignoring the original point.

No one is spinning anything, we were actually having a parallel discussion about whether it even mattered if they started from the core and moved out or the other way around.

Your assertion that they started more casually, or as you originally stated 'there were hardcore gamers who linedup on the first day therefore the premise is false' is just hair splitting.

Overall, the Wii did get the causals early. Thats' why it sold it. The PS3 did not, that's why it didn't. It's as simple as that.

 

[Rancid Mildew]

I'm not going to quote all three of you, but all three of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, which is that the Wii isn't going the opposite of the 360/PS3 like some people are stating. It started off more casual than most (if not all systems) and is only getting more casual. That goes against the argument that it's starting off casual and then pulling in the hardcore.

THAT was the argument I was refuting. You're all taking things and spinning them around all while ignoring the original point.

What about the games Nintendo of Japan seems to be courting recently? It's not definitive proof but the fact that they are pursuing hardcore franchises that they don't even need seems to indicate the beginning stages of the argument you disagree with.

 

[dammitmattt]

What about the games Nintendo of Japan seems to be courting recently? It's not definitive proof but the fact that they are pursuing hardcore franchises that they don't even need seems to indicate the beginning stages of the argument you disagree with.

I would argue that that's more a factor of user base than any trend towards more hardcore gamers picking up the system. As a gamer, that's a very good thing for us all, though

Overall, the Wii did get the causals early. Thats' why it sold it. The PS3 did not, that's why it didn't. It's as simple as that.

And they also got the hardcore early

 

[fernoca]

Yeah..
Many are like "Nintendo is abandoning their hardcore fans"..yet the Wii:
-Launched with Zelda Twilight Princess
-Got Super Mario Galaxy last year, which was not only their "big game" but also on the top selling Wii games overall (and barely played like a "non-game")
-Got this year not only Super Smash Bros. Brawl, but Mario Kart..both with basically traditional controls.

Not to mention that 2 of the Nintendo DS biggest sellers: New Super Mario Bros. and Pokémon are basically like their previous incarnations and barely use the "non gamer side" of the DS (i.e. touch screen ,mic, etc)..

 

[HK-47]

Why would you think it would shed more towards the core? Money issues aside, the core are always the early adopters. Why would a bunch of casual gamers jumping on Wii Sports and Wii Fit persuade hardcore gamers to jump in?

No one has provided any logical reasoning to support this.

Because the core has always bought more games over the long haul. Normally you go after the core first than the casuals line up as the price drops and more games release. Nintendo has flipped that around.

Yes they did get the Ninthings on board as the best unpaid advertisers you can get but they went straight for the casuals, effective cutting the HDs legs out from under them. Then they will continue to get more casuals (both new and old) on the Wii while, if they are logical, getting the big spending core to slowly move over to their system with compelling software. Also maybe 3rd parties wise up, since Nintendo has left alot of the core market they like so much open for them.

 

[dammitmattt]

Yeah..
Many are like "Nintendo is abandoning their hardcore fans"..yet the Wii:
-Launched with Zelda Twilight Princess
-Got Super Mario Galaxy last year, which was not only their "big game" but also on the top selling Wii games overall (and barely played like a "non-game")
-Got this year not only Super Smash Bros. Brawl, but Mario Kart..both with basically traditional controls.

Not to mention that 2 of the Nintendo DS biggest sellers: New Super Mario Bros. and Pokémon are basically like their previous incarnations and barely use the "non gamer side" of the DS (i.e. touch screen ,mic, etc)..

Boom Blox is secretly a very hardcore game with those motherfucking gold medals teasing me.

Your post just highlights that Nintendo is one of the few companies that can make multiple games that appeal equally to gamers and non-gamers, and these "crossover" games are the secret to roping in those dirty non-gamers into our hobby, and we need them for the industry to continue to grow.

 

[Deku]

I would argue that that's more a factor of user base than any trend towards more hardcore gamers picking up the system. As a gamer, that's a very good thing for us all, though



And they also got the hardcore early

I fold!

 

[2 Minutes Turkish]

From what I can make out here, this is kind of turning into a debate on how early 'early' is, as far as when the casuals grasped on to the Wii.

Isn't that bit hard to judge?

I mean, let's be honest, those initial few days would have been pretty damn close to 90-95% 'hardcore' gamers.

I mean, when I lined up at midnight, I can tell you now I didn't see ANYONE under 18, or over 40 and only 2 women. The EB I went to had around 100 people for the launch. My brother and his mate had a similar demographic turnout at the EB they went to also.

Of course, I'm only speaking from my experience in Australia.

But once the Wii came out, Nintendo hit the marketing HARD. Not to mention they set up a lot of Demo stations at various shopping centres around Australia. So I'd imagine the casuals caught on quite quickly down here.

 

[dammitmattt]

Because the core has always bought more games over the long haul. Normally you go after the core first than the casuals line up as the price drops and more games release. Nintendo has flipped that around.

Yes they did get the Ninthings on board as the best unpaid advertisers you can get but they went straight for the casuals, effective cutting the HDs legs out from under them. Then they will continue to get more casuals (both new and old) on the Wii while, if they are logical, getting the big spending core to slowly move over to their system with compelling software. Also maybe 3rd parties wise up, since Nintendo has left alot of the core market they like so much open for them.

I see what you're saying but my argument is that they've already won the core. Sure, there are some holdouts, but the segment of the core that is open to the Wii probably already have one because they can't ignore the quality Nintendo games and fun new experiences.

That "other" core is just a lost cause and will never come over...though Nintendo's not losing any sleep over this small segment.

But yeah, your post makes more sense than the others I've ready before it, so thanks!

 

[2 Minutes Turkish]

Yeah..
Many are like "Nintendo is abandoning their hardcore fans"..yet the Wii:
-Launched with Zelda Twilight Princess
-Got Super Mario Galaxy last year, which was not only their "big game" but also on the top selling Wii games overall (and barely played like a "non-game")
-Got this year not only Super Smash Bros. Brawl, but Mario Kart..both with basically traditional controls.

Not to mention that 2 of the Nintendo DS biggest sellers: New Super Mario Bros. and Pokémon are basically like their previous incarnations and barely use the "non gamer side" of the DS (i.e. touch screen ,mic, etc)..

I think the confusion is coming from people mixing up 'hardcore gamers' with 'Nintendo's hardcore fans'.

The 'hardcore' were never pandered to by Nintendo in the first place. That was Sega's domain, who then passed the torch onto Microsoft.

As to Nintendo's core/hardcore fans, well, they should be happier than ever really. They've/You've/We've still got the same games we've had for the last 3 generations, except with some new unique offerings that are appealing to a new audience, as well as capturing the attention of SOME of the older audience.

 

[Rancid Mildew]

I see what you're saying but my argument is that they've already won the core. Sure, there are some holdouts, but the segment of the core that is open to the Wii probably already have one because they can't ignore the quality Nintendo games and fun new experiences.

I think that's potentially, even probably, true in the west but the cross-over between hardcore Nintendo gamers and the rest of the market in Japan doesn't seem to be nearly as high. I think Nintendo recognizes this which is why we're hearing that they've chosen to internally fund Fatal Frame IV and probably money hat Monster Hunter 3 more than a year after it became obvious that the PS3 had failed miserably there. This seems to support kame-sennin's argument pretty strongly.

 

[justchris]

Why would you think it would shed more towards the core? Money issues aside, the core are always the early adopters. Why would a bunch of casual gamers jumping on Wii Sports and Wii Fit persuade hardcore gamers to jump in?

No one has provided any logical reasoning to support this.

Two reasons:

1) The Wii seems to be very much a transitional console, an experiment if you will. A very large focus of the Wii is bringing in new markets, and hopefully converting them to Wii 2 or Nintendo 6 or whatever the next system is owners.

By gradually shading up the spectrum the types of games they release, the convert gamers from non-gamers into either casual or core gamers. A non-gamer may not be into FPS, but maybe he'll be into RPGs, or maybe Platformers. You get them onto the system with the casual games, then you keep them playing the more in-depth games, so they'll remain customers when you eventually move on.

2) Every gamer who has a 360 and/or a PS3 and not a Wii is a consumer Nintendo wants. Just because they went after casuals heavily from the get go doesn't mean they don't want the hardcore. They just went after the harder market first.

 

[fernoca]

Your post just highlights that Nintendo is one of the few companies that can make multiple games that appeal equally to gamers and non-gamers, and these "crossover" games are the secret to roping in those dirty non-gamers into our hobby, and we need them for the industry to continue to grow.

As to Nintendo's core/hardcore fans, well, they should be happier than ever really. They've/You've/We've still got the same games we've had for the last 3 generations, except with some new unique offerings that are appealing to a new audience, as well as capturing the attention of SOME of the older audience.

Exactly..
By the way dammitmatt..stop mentioning Bloom Blox!!
I want to get it, but I got my eye on 2 cheap games I found (SSX Blur and DragonBall 3 on Wii..heck I don't even like Dragonball but it's online and I enjoyed the previous ones -each for under $20)..and the freaking return neither the stimulus check are on the horizon.."2 weeks" they say...every 2 weeks.. )

Spoiler

 

[Terrell]

Exactly..
By the way dammitmatt..stop mentioning Bloom Blox!!
I want to get it, but I got my eye on 2 cheap games I found (SSX Blur and DragonBall 3 on Wii..heck I don't even like Dragonball but it's online and I enjoyed the previous ones -each for under $20)..and the freaking return neither the stimulus check are on the horizon.."2 weeks" they say...every 2 weeks.. )

Spoiler

Is it wrong to suggest Boom Blox is more awesome than both of those combined and to skip the bargain bin?

 

[DDayton]

What does that have to do with being a shill

I believe shills are paid.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

In terms of "overshooting" you probably have a point. But Microsoft and Sony could never have foreseen the terrible economy we have today. If the economy was in high gear, many of those DS and Wii dollars would instead be PS3 and Xbox 360 dollars. The Wii did benefit from a novel control feature which created its massive hype, but more of its enduring success will be based on its relative price and how the rest of the economy fares.

No, neither Sony nor Micorsoft could have predicted the overall state of the economy, but they could have predicted relative pricing to be greater than previous generations - which is why we saw a 'next gen sales tax' price hike on not just the hardware but the games themselves.

Developing assets for HD is an exponential growth in costs, whereas (I would argue) the benefits of higher resolution, greater AA, ragdoll physics etc are only a geometric improvement to games.

If we're attributing the success of the Wii over HD consoles on purely pricing terms, then software costs must also be factored into that, not just to the development companies but to the consumers as well - and this is something that could have been forseen by both Microsoft and Sony.

However, what I will dispute is that the 360 (I'll leave Sony out of this one because they were trying to push a new video format) narrowed its focus. The 360 has MUCH more casual appeal than the Xbox at a much earlier point in its lifetime. After 2 1/2 years, there is a much wider variety of games including games with crossover appeal like Madden (definitive version), Guitar Hero, Rock Band, COD4, Halo 3, and more. On top of this, there are plenty of games with casual appeal on XBLA. The 360 has a much simpler and more user-friendly online system than its competition with strong parental controls and a family-friendly video marketplace.

The 360 still has a very narrow lineup without a lot of software diversity, and the token efforts to increase diversity have mostly failed, because of who exactly it's core audience consist of. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing for Microsoft, because as we've seen with attach rates, when they market games and genres that their core audience love, that same core audience go off any buy those games in droves, which has been very profitable for the companies that produce those kind of games.

As a longterm strategy however, appealing only to one kind of audience with only one type of game leads to genre saturation and eventual market stagnation and it becomes increasingly harder for product identification to be possible without spending a fuckton of money just to compete on the same level as the other 'genre kings'.

And the more money you're spending on creating a 'genre king' the riskier the product becomes, because it is never entirely possible to know when you're creating the 'new hotness' and when you're just releasing 'another iteration' that people can live without or pickup in the bargain bins 6 months down the line. I'd point to John Woos Stranglehold as an example of this - we all know Midway spend a lot of time and money creating it, getting a unique licence to ensure sales, and it was a highly polished game in exactly the kind of genre 360 owners usually lap up - and it ended up bombing.

I don't think we'll see another Midway game on such a scale on an HD console for quite a long time, if at all, certainly not until they are in a healthier financial state.

Another assumption you have made that I disagree with is that online features mean anything to 'casual' gamers yet, or that XBLA can be used as a features list for why it's not only the 'hardcore' buying 360. I think the Wiis primary emphasis on 'people sitting around on the same couch' and playing games together, with additional online features for those who want to continue playing 'when the parties over' in certain titles is one of it's greatest strengths in not only attracting 'casual' gamers to certain games in the first place, but in marketing itself as a brand to those same gamers - I suspect quite a lot of Wii owners have gone and bought a Wii after playing Wii Sports with their friends and having a lot of fun doing so, rather than seeing adverts showing other people having fun.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

The 360 still has a very narrow lineup without a lot of software diversity, and the token efforts to increase diversity have mostly failed, because of who exactly it's core audience consist of. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing for Microsoft, because as we've seen with attach rates, when they market games and genres that their core audience love, that same core audience go off any buy those games in droves, which has been very profitable for the companies that produce those kind of games.

As a longterm strategy however, appealing only to one kind of audience with only one type of game leads to genre saturation and eventual market stagnation and it becomes increasingly harder for product identification to be possible without spending a fuckton of money just to compete on the same level as the other 'genre kings'.

And the more money you're spending on creating a 'genre king' the riskier the product becomes, because it is never entirely possible to know when you're creating the 'new hotness' and when you're just releasing 'another iteration' that people can live without or pickup in the bargain bins 6 months down the line. I'd point to John Woos Stranglehold as an example of this - we all know Midway spend a lot of time and money creating it, getting a unique licence to ensure sales, and it was a highly polished game in exactly the kind of genre 360 owners usually lap up - and it ended up bombing.

I don't think we'll see another Midway game on such a scale on an HD console for quite a long time, if at all, certainly not until they are in a healthier financial state.

Another assumption you have made that I disagree with is that online features mean anything to 'casual' gamers yet, or that XBLA can be used as a features list for why it's not only the 'hardcore' buying 360. I think the Wiis primary emphasis on 'people sitting around on the same couch' and playing games together, with additional online features for those who want to continue playing 'when the parties over' in certain titles is one of it's greatest strengths in not only attracting 'casual' gamers to certain games in the first place, but in marketing itself as a brand to those same gamers - I suspect quite a lot of Wii owners have gone and bought a Wii after playing Wii Sports with their friends and having a lot of fun doing so, rather than seeing adverts showing other people having fun.

I was coming to post those same things. I would add many things that MS has done that would turn off the casual gamer: Make online a tough decision. I think Nintendo nailed it with wifi in every box. Wifi is a proposition easy enough for anybody with high speed internet. If you have it, then you probably considered or have wifi. Either the company installs it for you or someway, somehow, you have it. Or, the guy down the street has it and you have figured how to steal it. But MS picked their position and created a $100 tax on Wifi because the overlap of core gamers they seek and the people who know how to install wifi by themselves is probably huge. Thus, a casual gamer may not see the necessity of getting Wifi at that cost AND wouldn't be interested in running cable to the SPECIFIC spot where they'll put the 360.

The controller: on visual inspection and how MS displays their controllers in the manuals and, worse of all, menu screens are intimidating. Anybody trying to get a grasp of a complex game with complex controllers would be intimidated and casuals could be easily turned off by it. Look at GTA4; not that different from previous GTA's in control, except in a few areas. But it was difficult for me to get a grasp of the controls based on the manual and menu graphical representation. The graphical representation of 'RB and LB' vs the 'LT and RT' just seem non-intuitive. I want to say confusing but that's only because it's different than the norm of the last 2 generations: PS2 (L1 and the second one is called, suprisingly, L2). The 360 differs very slightly than the PS controllers but, of the few games I have played, the visual representation of the controller, never shows a top down view of the 360 controller; it's always from the front with a few lines leading into the general vicinity of the shoulder buttons. Yes, it's an obstacle easily overcome by someone who has played games but more frustrating than controllers in the past and probably an obstacle of casuals. But, the system wasn't made for casuals. Because MS hasn't paid attention to this in many different ways (trying to stimulate devs/pubs to have more simple instructions or more intuitive ways to explain the controller or better in game tutorials just come to mind), they have shown a total disregard to the casuals, mostly in contrast to Nintendo, who have a firm understanding of casuals.

The lineup: Still focused on shooters, racers, sports. Mostly games that take advantage of every button on that controller. Buttons with 2 or 3 different functions depending on the situation (laugh at Rockstar's controller in the pause menu that cycles at insane speeds with 3 seemingly different context-related controller 'options'; car-foot-sniper and whatever else). I exclude xbox live because I think, the majority of casuals stay away from live/psn/vc/wiiware. It just involves an extra step (online) that true casuals won't navigate effectively if they, are by definition, casual. The numbers play out for each respective company: there have been releases that suggests the majority of these consoles are not online. So, limited to just releases, by nature, the 360 is not casual. The draw is on core games: the best games are core games. People are not coming for 'non-games' or anything besides shooter #4389.1 (that's rainbow six:vegas 2, btw). Wii Sports led the Wii and will bring in the casuals and sales prove that they are sticking to wii and not moving.

 

[future_pinoy]

This, and the rest of your post is an excellent point. It will be very difficult for third parties to shift philosophy, and some will not be able to handle the transition. Sega is one of the few third parties that understands Nintendo's strategy. Their games appear to be moving up market more or less from launch to the present (MB:BB, M&S>>>Mad World, S&SR). Other companies, like EA misinterpret Nintendo's strategy. They believe Nintendo is "settling" for the casual market because the games are cheaper to produce. Thus they create "casual divisions" to make cheap games thinking this will satiate the new market. They do not realize that upstreaming is only possible if the casual games are of quality and contain a certain amount of depth. This is necessary if new gamers are to be enticed to move further up market.



To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

wonderful analysis .. i wonder what pachter is thinking right now ..

 

[Cheez-It]

The argument was bottom up, which supposed that they started with the casuals and worked their way to the hardcore. That's not true. They started with the Nintendo hardcore (and some casuals of course) and worked their way to more casuals (and some hardcores of course).

It's still the same general idea, but it just happened incredibly fast. Don't forget that the majority of the initial "casual" sales were really just parents buying it for Christmas gifts for their kids who already wanted it. It's not like they roped in this huge group of non-gamers on day one. To get that level of appeal ALWAYS takes time.

I think you are looking at this wrong. If I'm not mistaken, we are discussing target demographs, and not the people who ultimately ended up buying the system. It seems fairly obvious that while Nintendo did a reasonable job placating Nintendo fans with Zelda:TP, the main target remained the casuals. Packing in Wii Sports was a brilliant idea; all these Nintendo fans picking up the Wii for (primarily) Zelda now had a copy of Nintendo's most brilliant marketing tool, one that would probably appeal to both them and their non-gaming friends and relatives. On top of this, there were certainly casual who picked up the Wii based on the generous media coverage, and parents who picked it up with for their children (my anecdote below should apply to these consoles as well).

As an example of what this could accomplish; I lined up for the Wii. Picked up Zelda, an extra controller, and obviously Wii Sports. Played a little of both. Discovered that my non-gaming fiancee really enjoyed Wii Sports. When we had company over, they noticed the Wii and we all sat down for a game of Wii Sports. One of them brought the Wii within a week. I went to a tennis tournament, parents joined, so I brought the Wii. They had both played tetris in the past, nothing more. After a few sessions over the weekend, my Dad went out and brought one within a day of returning (I don't know how the hell he found one so quickly). Even if you say Nintendo was appealing to their 'core' at that point, this ultimately helped target the casual market, given the accessibility of the system (a remote control) and the inclusion of Wii Sports.

Anyhow, just some uneducated thoughts and ramblings.

 

[ksamedi]

I think you are looking at this wrong. If I'm not mistaken, we are discussing target demographs, and not the people who ultimately ended up buying the system. It seems fairly obvious that while Nintendo did a reasonable job placating Nintendo fans with Zelda:TP, the main target remained the casuals. Packing in Wii Sports was a brilliant idea; all these Nintendo fans picking up the Wii for (primarily) Zelda now had a copy of Nintendo's most brilliant marketing tool, one that would probably appeal to both them and their non-gaming friends and relatives. On top of this, there were certainly casual who picked up the Wii based on the generous media coverage, and parents who picked it up with for their children (my anecdote below should apply to these consoles as well).

As an example of what this could accomplish; I lined up for the Wii. Picked up Zelda, an extra controller, and obviously Wii Sports. Played a little of both. Discovered that my non-gaming fiancee really enjoyed Wii Sports. When we had company over, they noticed the Wii and we all sat down for a game of Wii Sports. One of them brought the Wii within a week. I went to a tennis tournament, parents joined, so I brought the Wii. They had both played tetris in the past, nothing more. After a few sessions over the weekend, my Dad went out and brought one within a day of returning (I don't know how the hell he found one so quickly). Even if you say Nintendo was appealing to their 'core' at that point, this ultimately helped target the casual market, given the accessibility of the system (a remote control) and the inclusion of Wii Sports.

Anyhow, just some uneducated thoughts and ramblings.

The Wii is not meant to be for casuals, its meant to be played by every member of the family. Thats why its engineerd as small and silent, to be placed in the living room. Its not that hard of a concept really.

 

[jarrod]

I would argue that that's more a factor of user base than any trend towards more hardcore gamers picking up the system. As a gamer, that's a very good thing for us all, though

I think there's more intent than that on NCL's end... they understand where the lineup's lacking, which is why they've targeted specific projects like DQ Swords, Monster Hunter 3 or Fatal Frame 4.

As an example of what this could accomplish; I lined up for the Wii. Picked up Zelda, an extra controller, and obviously Wii Sports. Played a little of both. Discovered that my non-gaming fiancee really enjoyed Wii Sports. When we had company over, they noticed the Wii and we all sat down for a game of Wii Sports. One of them brought the Wii within a week. I went to a tennis tournament, parents joined, so I brought the Wii. They had both played tetris in the past, nothing more. After a few sessions over the weekend, my Dad went out and brought one within a day of returning (I don't know how the hell he found one so quickly). Even if you say Nintendo was appealing to their 'core' at that point, this ultimately helped target the casual market, given the accessibility of the system (a remote control) and the inclusion of Wii Sports.

Anyhow, just some uneducated thoughts and ramblings.

Just an aside, but this sort of word of mouth is what's really driving Wii sales I think... Nintendo's always been somewhat vocal about wanting everyone in the house playing Wii but that traditional gamers would be the entry point, makes sense that with a compelling enough product that'd extend further into friends and extended family (who'd want/need to buy their own Wii).

 

[Cheez-It]

The Wii is not meant to be for casuals, its meant to be played by every member of the family. Thats why its engineerd as small and silent, to be placed in the living room. Its not that hard of a concept really.

When I say 'casual' I suppose I mean to say a range of people from non-gamers to 'casual' gamers. As in: the wide appeal you suggest.

 

[dammitmattt]

The 360 still has a very narrow lineup without a lot of software diversity, and the token efforts to increase diversity have mostly failed, because of who exactly it's core audience consist of. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing for Microsoft, because as we've seen with attach rates, when they market games and genres that their core audience love, that same core audience go off any buy those games in droves, which has been very profitable for the companies that produce those kind of games.

The only people saying this are people without 360s (or with blinders on). The 360 has less party games with casual appeal, but overall it has a much larger diversity of good games across every genre. The only two genres that are really lacking good games are platforming and party/mini games.

I'm really sick of this meme, but I think you are just confusing "games without strong casual appeal" with "narrow lineup."

And the more money you're spending on creating a 'genre king' the riskier the product becomes, because it is never entirely possible to know when you're creating the 'new hotness' and when you're just releasing 'another iteration' that people can live without or pickup in the bargain bins 6 months down the line. I'd point to John Woos Stranglehold as an example of this - we all know Midway spend a lot of time and money creating it, getting a unique licence to ensure sales, and it was a highly polished game in exactly the kind of genre 360 owners usually lap up - and it ended up bombing.

What genre exactly are you talking about here? FPS? 3PS? Sandbox? RPG? Racing? Adventure? Sports? The 360 excels in a ton of genres.

Another assumption you have made that I disagree with is that online features mean anything to 'casual' gamers yet, or that XBLA can be used as a features list for why it's not only the 'hardcore' buying 360. I think the Wiis primary emphasis on 'people sitting around on the same couch' and playing games together, with additional online features for those who want to continue playing 'when the parties over' in certain titles is one of it's greatest strengths in not only attracting 'casual' gamers to certain games in the first place, but in marketing itself as a brand to those same gamers - I suspect quite a lot of Wii owners have gone and bought a Wii after playing Wii Sports with their friends and having a lot of fun doing so, rather than seeing adverts showing other people having fun.

I think casuals do care about online. All you have to do is look at how many people are playing casual games online on their computer every single day. With that said, the online implementation on the consoles is still lagging behind how simple it is on the PC (launch browser and go). The 360 made huge strides here where you're always online, but you still have to get over that initial setup process and pay to play, which are two big barriers of course.