[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]ugh....some people see it as black or white. It is possible that nintendo can appeal to both core and non-gamers. The DS proved this.subrosian
This is a common misunderstanding. Look at every Nintendo handheld from the Gameboy onwards - what have been the defining characteristics?Long battery life, durability, addictive portable games.
The Gameboy beat the Gamegear because it was actually a portable gaming platform - bite sized gaming like Tetris, Pokemon, and Dr. Mario, all in a long-battery life, indestructable pocket platform. Gamers were playing games like Final Fantasy Legends III under the table at dinner, in the bathroom at work, on the bus...
And the DS didn't change that - you can look at the touch screen, or you can recognize that essentially what made the DS a success is the same thing that made every other Gameboy a success - it is *built* for pocket gaming.
When we look at the PSP, what we see is something that's *not* portable - the games are mostly built to be epic games (god of war?) which aren't suited to pick-up-and-go gaming. The system itself is fragile, a big, easily scratched screen and flimsy (by comparison) optical drive. The battery life is painfully short.
Today is no different than my camp days as a kid. One kid would bring in a Game Gear, we'd gather around on the playground, but by the end of the day when we were waiting for our parents to pick us up, his batteries were long dead. Meanwhile, I was still cruising through Mega Man V on my Gameboy.
Well if the Wii wins, and resoundingly so, the next crop of systems will probably be a lot different in terms of contol. thinicer
Doubt it... what would be the point? The Wiimote technology is now "been there, seen it, played it" - what sense would there be in doing it yet again? Consider too, that there is a market for traditionally controlled games. After all, PC gamers have been using a keyboard and mouse for decades, yet the only refinement to come to this control technology has been the introduction of progressively more sensitive mice.
The same holds for the ever-evolving joypad. The Xbox 360 controller represents the pinnacle of dual-analog, and yet even it has flaws that will be worked out in the next iteration - the D-pad will almost certainly be changed. If motion-sensitivity is introduced, it won't be at the cost of rumble...
Even the PS3 hybrid pad will likely go more in the direction of re-introducing rumble, rather than pushing more towards being the Wii. What we're seeing here is a divide in the market - not a "me too" follow the leader approach.
Casuals and non-gamers fuel the market. Do you want developers to go bankrupt and not be able to make great games for the minority of "hardcore" gamers?foxhound_fox
Actually, to a large degree it's the other way around. Hardcore gamers aren't just necissary, they *define* the market. While a few companies (Nintendo) can fight over casuals /non-gamers, by their very nature they do not buy enough software to sustain development. And without games, the market is dead.Keep in mind, there's a false assumption here - "everyone buying a Wii, or Wii games, is a casual / non-gamer". Not true, I'm a hardcore gamer, yet I own Mario games, Halo games, I've even owned a sports game or two in my lifetime. Hardcore gamers tend to buy *massive* amounts of software, by comparison to casuals. Look at the 360 attach rate.
You also have to look at the sales of $200+ graphics cards - massive - we have an industry here that caters to the high end. Why?
The cost of introducing *any* cutting-edge technology is huge, but eventually becomes cheaper. Look at motion sensitivity - the Wii is $250 - have any idea how much a device like the Wii would have cost to manufacture in, say, 1980?
Yet even more so, we have technology like Plasma screens. You can now purchase a 42" 720p plasma screen for about $1000... such a screen would have cost $10,000 just a few years ago. My 720p 27" HDTV cost me $500 in January, yet such a screen was $1500 just a few years ago. What happened?
Ultimately, the high end consumers bought the early technology, the people seeking the very best, and provided the seed money for technology we now take for granted. If it wasn't for companies pushing techology, and the early adopters who buy it, the world would be a different place - Plasma screen research would have died, we would only have LCD, DLP, and CRT.
In any case, the point is that the hardcore market is what fuels innovation - you have people who are willing to spend almost any amount of money on a product, simply because it is new technology. I own a 720p HDTV and a 5.1 surround system - how much material is there really for me to use with such a setup? Already I'm feeling that 27" is simply too small.. I'm starting to get an eye for a 1080p set...
The point is, the hardcore market is there, they buy technology that casuals won't buy, they drive the bottom line for many companies, and the technology industry caters to them as much as casuals. While more people buy an iPod, Nintendo DS, and Wii than buy an HDTV, surround sound system, and HD-gaming system (or high-end PC), there are ultimately dozens of companies competing for the hardcore consumers, far more than are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
By your logic, there are lots of people willing to buy the latest/greatest tech for themselves. If so, then why hasn't the technologically superior ps3 sold tons and tons of units?
Log in to comment