Ex-naughty Dog founder bashes PS3, says that Wii and GuitaRhero are saving gamin

Last time I checked neither 11% or 30% is nota majority.

Link me to said groupings you use, I mean if the said analysts in those links don't take it seriously than I must have missed something considering they group with more than two basic overly generalized groups. :|

To be clear the ones that don't play agmes will always and have always out numbered those that do, the same can be said for any market. It's redundant to even make that claim.

-RPGamer-

Who said that they were majorities? I said that the spending done by this 11% is greater than the spending done by any other single group. If it wasn't, the survey would have pointed it out. As for my grouping, I'm not going to link you to modern terminology. If you actually read the press releases, executive interviews and media head talk, you would see where I got this stuff. As for your last point, I can't help but find it hilarious. More people don't listen to music than those who do? More people have never watched a movie or read a book than those who have? People make music in third-world countries, and the others apply to everything else! You have to be kidding.

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"][QUOTE="KirbyFan10101"]

He made similar points on the Bonus Round.

Ultimately I think next generation will be the generation in which graphics don't matter: not this one.

_AsasN_

So than why is the wii winning...

no duh, who the hell would buy the Wii at the same price as the PS3

but it wouldn't be that expensive, now would it?

whose fault is it that the PS3 is expensive? Sony.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]

The market has been expanding because games are popular and big news. Not because new games are expanding the industry. Hardcore and casual markets don't even exist anymore; there are traditional gamers, and there are non-gamers. And no, non-gamers do not suddenly "become" gamers by playing games. Otherwise, terms like "non-games" wouldn't have been invented for things like Wii Sports and Brain Age. Non-gamers play non-games. It's as simple as that. If you want to get serious, then here it is: traditional gamers are what we previously considered "casual" and "hardcore", while the extremely hardcore players are now labeled as "hardcore", and are basically ignored when a company looks at possible target demographics. Then, there are "non-gamers". These three types of gamers are the foundation of the new industry that will support all of them, instead of just one of them. In its current state, traditional gamers get all the love, while non-gamers and hardcores are left out in the cold. This is a terrible, terrible thing. Eventually, traditional gamers are going to get bored, just like traditional comic readers got bored. The comic book industry shrank heavily, and it is now supported by a single, dedicated audience. Do you really think it would be a good thing for the industry to keep on its current path?

FlockofSpagheti

Wait so games are already in the mass appeal range to be called popular, so why do they need saved again? And yes new games are expanding the industry already, this isn't something new that GH and the Wii seem to be able to do, hell Nintendo did some of that with the DS before the Wii did anything.

The marketis too diverse for just two groupings, and technically one grouping makes no sense, b/c if you're a "non-gamer" than you're not part of the market at all. Hence the reasoon why the linked reports seperate the market in to 5-6 groupings, not just 2.

"Non-gamers" don't suddenly become "gamers" by playing "games."Wow, I'll let what you just said speak for itself. And what the hell is a non-game?All games on theWii are games, no matter how hard they target current people that do not play games.

And no plenty of pubs/devs target the more "hardcore" of the gamers, otherwise complete niche genre developers and pubnlishers would not exist (and to make it clear they do exist).

Eventually they're (all of them apparently) will get bored, where is your case study of that? Link me (to the future). I don't think it's on a bad path, said "newness" was being done before the Wii or GH came out. And I'll keep ignoring the references to the comic industry b/c they're way too many variables between the two to even make that a viable analogy.

Great post. I like how you didn't actually respond to anything I said, but instead--once again--went after my terminology. Games are popular right now because they are a fad again. They were a fad before they died in '83, too, but they've been in the shadows since then. In the last decade, they've made a slow rise back into the public consciousness, even though their audience is so extremely limited.

Yes, I did actually respond to what you said. Your terminology gets in the way of any points your sadly attempting to make. So they're a fad now? What proof do you have of that? None it's just your opinion, which rank right up their with your predictions that gamers will become tired. And this "fad" seems to be lasting a pretty long time compared to the 83 reference, again another poor analog with too many variables.

It's so limited that it's been divided into six catagories by reports I actually link to, over 191 million total gamers if memory serves me right from that link. Yup so limited... :|

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]

The market has been expanding because games are popular and big news. Not because new games are expanding the industry. Hardcore and casual markets don't even exist anymore; there are traditional gamers, and there are non-gamers. And no, non-gamers do not suddenly "become" gamers by playing games. Otherwise, terms like "non-games" wouldn't have been invented for things like Wii Sports and Brain Age. Non-gamers play non-games. It's as simple as that. If you want to get serious, then here it is: traditional gamers are what we previously considered "casual" and "hardcore", while the extremely hardcore players are now labeled as "hardcore", and are basically ignored when a company looks at possible target demographics. Then, there are "non-gamers". These three types of gamers are the foundation of the new industry that will support all of them, instead of just one of them. In its current state, traditional gamers get all the love, while non-gamers and hardcores are left out in the cold. This is a terrible, terrible thing. Eventually, traditional gamers are going to get bored, just like traditional comic readers got bored. The comic book industry shrank heavily, and it is now supported by a single, dedicated audience. Do you really think it would be a good thing for the industry to keep on its current path?

-RPGamer-

Wait so games are already in the mass appeal range to be called popular, so why do they need saved again? And yes new games are expanding the industry already, this isn't something new that GH and the Wii seem to be able to do, hell Nintendo did some of that with the DS before the Wii did anything.

The marketis too diverse for just two groupings, and technically one grouping makes no sense, b/c if you're a "non-gamer" than you're not part of the market at all. Hence the reasoon why the linked reports seperate the market in to 5-6 groupings, not just 2.

"Non-gamers" don't suddenly become "gamers" by playing "games."Wow, I'll let what you just said speak for itself. And what the hell is a non-game?All games on theWii are games, no matter how hard they target current people that do not play games.

And no plenty of pubs/devs target the more "hardcore" of the gamers, otherwise complete niche genre developers and pubnlishers would not exist (and to make it clear they do exist).

Eventually they're (all of them apparently) will get bored, where is your case study of that? Link me (to the future). I don't think it's on a bad path, said "newness" was being done before the Wii or GH came out. And I'll keep ignoring the references to the comic industry b/c they're way too many variables between the two to even make that a viable analogy.

Great post. I like how you didn't actually respond to anything I said, but instead--once again--went after my terminology. Games are popular right now because they are a fad again. They were a fad before they died in '83, too, but they've been in the shadows since then. In the last decade, they've made a slow rise back into the public consciousness, even though their audience is so extremely limited.

Yes, I did actually respond to what you said. Your terminology gets in the way of any points your sadly attempting to make. So they're a fad now? What proof do you have of that? None it's just your opinion, which rank right up their with your predictions that gamers will become tired. And this "fad" seems to be lasting a pretty long time compared to the 83 reference, again another poor analog with too many variables.

It's so limited that it's been divided into six catagories by reports I actually link to, over 191 million total gamers if memory serves me right from that link. Yup so limited... :|

The fact that you have to bring up distinct numbers shows how flawed your viewpoint is. With other mediums, we don't need them, because everyone indulges. Under 200 million is nothing. As for fad status, you once again haven't read the news. Gaming was a fad between maybe '72 and '82 before, so a solid 10 years. We haven't gotten that yet. The press frenzy and real, mainstream recognition has actually only started during the last 2 gens. Regardless of Mario's success, gaming just wasn't very big back then. It's still small, but it's a little bigger than it used to be.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]Last time I checked neither 11% or 30% is nota majority.

Link me to said groupings you use, I mean if the said analysts in those links don't take it seriously than I must have missed something considering they group with more than two basic overly generalized groups. :|

To be clear the ones that don't play agmes will always and have always out numbered those that do, the same can be said for any market. It's redundant to even make that claim.

FlockofSpagheti

Who said that they were majorities? I said that the spending done by this 11% is greater than the spending done by any other single group. If it wasn't, the survey would have pointed it out. As for my grouping, I'm not going to link you to modern terminology. If you actually read the press releases, executive interviews and media head talk, you would see where I got this stuff. As for your last point, I can't help but find it hilarious. More people don't listen to music than those who do? More people have never watched a movie or read a book than those who have? People make music in third-world countries, and the others apply to everything else! You have to be kidding.

You said that the market is supported by the hardcore early in the thread, and while it is, it is still the minority of the support. Obviously it's not the dedicated hardcore gamers that even come close to keeping the market in it's growing state that it's already had before the WIi and GH came around.

Link it, or I'll safely assume it doesn't exist. It's so modern that recent articles don't use it. Link it.

Making music in some small country doesn't equate it to being a economic market contribution. And are we're seriously going to start considering small countries world wide that don't even get games shipped to them to begin with?

The fact that you have to bring up distinct numbers shows how flawed your viewpoint is. With other mediums, we don't need them, because everyone indulges. Under 200 million is nothing. As for fad status, you once again haven't read the news. Gaming was a fad between maybe '72 and '82 before, so a solid 10 years. We haven't gotten that yet. The press frenzy and real, mainstream recognition has actually only started during the last 2 gens. Regardless of Mario's success, gaming just wasn't very big back then. It's still small, but it's a little bigger than it used to be.

FlockofSpagheti

I bring up numbers, rather than make up stuff, b/c it's factual data that can be looked up. If facts are flawed, well then I'm done with this conversation.

There are numbers for the other types of entertainment. You can look up numbers for other markets like movies and music quite easily. Yes under 200 million is nothing, who was I even kidding? Those 200 million who pull in more revenue than the movie industry must mean absolutely nothing to the gaming industry.

I don't consider this a fad, nothing shows that yet.

Give it up RPG. He'll just use circular logic, backtrack and change his opinion, sidestep anything damning, make wild assumptions, beat his own chest with his "knowledge"....Really, it's not worth it.Ibacai

Yeah, I see, not like he's the first to do such though. I'll end it with this post, hopefully he doesn't expect anything past this...

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"][QUOTE="KirbyFan10101"]

He made similar points on the Bonus Round.

Ultimately I think next generation will be the generation in which graphics don't matter: not this one.

Video_Game_King

So than why is the wii winning...

Because it has good games and a broader appeal then its contenders :??

WRONG, its cheap and nintendo made it. Plus u can play alot of family,children and party games on it.

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]Last time I checked neither 11% or 30% is nota majority.

Link me to said groupings you use, I mean if the said analysts in those links don't take it seriously than I must have missed something considering they group with more than two basic overly generalized groups. :|

To be clear the ones that don't play agmes will always and have always out numbered those that do, the same can be said for any market. It's redundant to even make that claim.

-RPGamer-

Who said that they were majorities? I said that the spending done by this 11% is greater than the spending done by any other single group. If it wasn't, the survey would have pointed it out. As for my grouping, I'm not going to link you to modern terminology. If you actually read the press releases, executive interviews and media head talk, you would see where I got this stuff. As for your last point, I can't help but find it hilarious. More people don't listen to music than those who do? More people have never watched a movie or read a book than those who have? People make music in third-world countries, and the others apply to everything else! You have to be kidding.

You said that the market is supported by the hardcore early in the thread, and while it is, it is still the minority of the support. Obviously it's not the dedicated hardcore gamers that even come close to keeping the market in it's growing state that it's already had before the WIi and GH came around.

Link it, or I'll safely assume it doesn't exist. It's so modern that recent articles don't use it. Link it.

Making music in some small country doesn't equate it to being a economic market contribution. And are we're seriously going to start considering small countries world wide that don't even get games shipped to them to begin with?

You're reading my post the wrong way. I'm saying that everyone indulges in these forms in some way or another. Third-worlds have music, everywhere else has books, movies and music. Very few actually buy games, by comparison. Out of 6.6 billion people, only 200 million play games. This is actually very funny. As for the terminology, I don't care whether you believe me or not, as long as you don't keep attempting to derail discussion by attacking it. Go on and be ignorant of the obvious facts; I'm not going to go out of my way to fill you in.

The hardcore gamers' spending has increased over the years, actually, because the size of gaming overall has increased, meaning that there are naturally more hardcore gamers to spend. They still spend more than any single group by far. The other 5 groups scramble to meet this with the remaining 70%, but none of them come close on their own. The industry's growth has been due to a number of factors, and not one of them has been mainstream acceptance. Recognition? Sure, games have their own popular TV shows on G4 and Spike, and they're commonly seen in the headlines. Acceptance, though, is when the mainstream actually starts gaming themselves. The growth will be explosive when this happens, rather than gradual like it has been in gathering up every last scrap of the "males 15-25" audience.

Give it up RPG. He'll just use circular logic, backtrack and change his opinion, sidestep anything damning, make wild assumptions, beat his own chest with his "knowledge"....Really, it's not worth it.Ibacai

Obviously, you haven't been reading the discussion.

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]Give it up RPG. He'll just use circular logic, backtrack and change his opinion, sidestep anything damning, make wild assumptions, beat his own chest with his "knowledge"....Really, it's not worth it.FlockofSpagheti

Obviously, you haven't been reading the discussion.

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]Give it up RPG. He'll just use circular logic, backtrack and change his opinion, sidestep anything damning, make wild assumptions, beat his own chest with his "knowledge"....Really, it's not worth it.Ibacai

Obviously, you haven't been reading the discussion.

Clearly not, or you wouldn't make ridiculous claims like the above. Backtracking? Sidestepping? Wild assumptions? Where are these? Oh, right... nowhere. As for circular logic, I've never heard anything more outrageous. Show me some places where I used it, and I'll show you where my thoughts weren't completed due to the nature of posting.

:lol: He is just angry because hisgames are crap, Jak and Crash Bandicoot are miserable failures in the eyes of Mario.DSgamer64

[QUOTE="Ibacai"][QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]Give it up RPG. He'll just use circular logic, backtrack and change his opinion, sidestep anything damning, make wild assumptions, beat his own chest with his "knowledge"....Really, it's not worth it.FlockofSpagheti

Obviously, you haven't been reading the discussion.

Clearly not, or you wouldn't make ridiculous claims like the above. Backtracking? Sidestepping? Wild assumptions? Where are these? Oh, right... nowhere. As for circular logic, I've never heard anything more outrageous. Show me some places where I used it, and I'll show you where my thoughts weren't completed due to the nature of posting.

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"][QUOTE="Ibacai"][QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]Give it up RPG. He'll just use circular logic, backtrack and change his opinion, sidestep anything damning, make wild assumptions, beat his own chest with his "knowledge"....Really, it's not worth it.Ibacai

Obviously, you haven't been reading the discussion.

Clearly not, or you wouldn't make ridiculous claims like the above. Backtracking? Sidestepping? Wild assumptions? Where are these? Oh, right... nowhere. As for circular logic, I've never heard anything more outrageous. Show me some places where I used it, and I'll show you where my thoughts weren't completed due to the nature of posting.

The interviewee's word is fact, in regards to comic books. I agreed with this viewpoint in relation to video gamesbefore I even saw him define it completely. It will most likely occur the same way, so why argue the point? Just use it as a basis for another argument. But if you want to give up, that's fine.