What's the point of Nintendo pandering to "core" gamers?

True, but some people see it as a negative if Nintendo doesn't have games that Playstation or Xbox have like Final Fantasy, Watch Dogs, or even Overwatch. Games that would be considered to be for the "Hardcore".

@LegatoSkyheart: Yeah, that's fair enough. Although I don't entirely see it as a question of hardcore titles - I think that fundamentally, if you're a gamer (especially one with a limited budget), you may not be in a position to buy multiple consoles. So a big selling point is going to be a mix of first-party exclusives with plenty of cross-platform third party titles.

This is all complete fantasy.

1. You are bashing the hardcore for having their tastes

2. You are claiming superiority based on what some gamers say in jest.

And all of this is totally ignorant of what's important here. If Nintendo wants to survive as a console maker, it needs to do more than wii u. The obnoxious opinions of a few (which you are proving no better than here to be frank) simply doesn't matter.

Summed up pretty well man. GameCube was like the glory days of Nintendo for me.

In the day and age of mobile gaming, it is probably a business necessity to attempt to appeal to a core gamer. The casual/non-gamer has made their exodus to phone and tablet which Nintendo does not have a market for in terms of hardware. Nintendo, traditionally, stays very close to controlling their IP and that necessitates having a hardware platform to promote that IP from.

Ask Nintendo! Remember what they were aiming for with the Wii, and remember what they were aiming for with the Wii U. They played a huge role in the making of these categories, and they've ended up failing to appeal to both of them over time.

@Shewgenja: The Switch in all honesty, has the potential to get casual gamers into console gaming again. The more ways people have to play games, the better. Besides, the whole "phones for casuals, console for core" mentality doesn't do anyone any favors.

Nope. People don't want useless hardware anymore. And that's actually not such a bad thing.

"Fantasy"? You must not be looking in the right places then.

When have I bashed the "hardcore" for preferring anything other than Nintendo games? I must've been more drunk than a combination of Homer Simpson, Barney Gumble and Peter Griffin because all I remember was observe that they don't really care about Nintendo (and never really have). For liking different games? When have I done that? When have I called someone a moron for thinking along the lines of traditional fighters are better than Smash Bros when all I did was observe their status on it? When have I ever insulted someone for preferring a Bethesda open world game over a Zelda game when again, just observe their views on it (and for both matters, refuting arguments on why Nintendo wouldn't survive on the "hardcore"'s preferred systems for gaming)?

"Obnoxious opinions of a few" never mind said "few" and their opinions pretty much having a degree of power it seems? They begged for Nintendo to be third party/mobile and look what the hell we're getting. A mediocre app, a mediocre Pokemon spinoff, and a dreadful looking Mario game.

I've bolded your final sentence there because I think it's so important. When people suggest that "hardcore" gamers don't like Nintendo platforms or want Nintendo to be third-party, they are making ridiculous assertions that don't have any basis in anything other than sheer anecdote. I'm a so-called "hardcore gamer", and as a hardcore gamer with a reasonable gaming budget, I make it my business to own multiple platforms - this includes Nintendo hardware. My biggest console library, by far, is on PS4...but do I want Nintendo to be a third-party? No, I don't.

We have to be careful about a) putting people into overly-simplistic buckets of "hardcore" and "casual" and b) making wild assumptions about what millions of people want or don't want. There's enormous nuance in that which gets ignored. And there's a denial of the idea that the same person can play Mario on one minute, and then turn around and play EVE Online the next (and that there are likely a lot of people who occupy that kind of space).

To some extent these dichotomies remind me of silly schoolyard debates, rather than the conversations that genuine enthusiast gamers have. If you're a gamer - especially if you identify as an enthusiast - aren't you interested in all kinds of games on all kinds of platforms? Aren't you interested in variety and innovation? Aren't great games more important than a single brand? One would think so, at any rate.

@doubutsuteki: The Switch is basically a tablet though, about, one with games as it's defining focus. If it's priced well enough, and has most of the big media apps, then it's bound to do well with casual gamers.

We will see. They still have Android and iOS devices as their competition. It would "do well" if it managed to sell in numbers comparable at least to those of iPhones/iPads.

I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous standard. You're seriously saying that the Switch can only be considered a success if it sells in volumes that compare "at least" to iPhones and iPads?

As of July 2016, Apple had sold 1 billion iPhones globally. For the sake of comparison, the current highest-selling game console ever is the PlayStation 2, which has managed just over 155 million sales globally.

As for iPad, it has sold through nearly 310 million units (as of March 2016). By now, it will have likely more than doubled the PlayStation 2 in terms of lifetime sales.

So, you're comparing apples with oranges here (pun not intended). ;-)

We can talk about what it means for Switch to be a commercial success, but selling 1 billion devices (or even 300 million) is not even remotely an appropriate measure. Not to mention that you're comparing completely different products - "having a touch screen" is not, in and of itself, a criteria that defines an entire product category.

Nintendo 3rd party support was already dead at the n64 age, let alone the gamecube age.

The gamecube also had a huge kiddy stigma over it as everything they builded was cartoony and the device itself looked like a toy to many.

Gamecube pushed further on n64 concept, which really gave them the best games, but it was already clear in that time they couldn't support a console and sustain it by themselves, as the software on the n64 was a waste land together.

Wii and DS got huge because of a new influx of people, which also attracted a lot of new game makers and 3rd party's. But iwata didn't know what to do with these people and just let it die out a horrible dead which made devs and company's move to other platforms to never return.

Still, you have to admit, no console is selling PS2 numbers anymore because those gamers went somewhere.

@Shewgenja: Most those numbers were from poor countries WAY later. Also the fact it was super cheap DVD player. DS surpassed PS2 numbers. But Sony got jealous and started selling them dirt cheap to third world places trying to pass DS. It would later comeback and pass DS.

Careful! Saying Gamecube had a kiddy stigma would revoke revisionism akin to this.

@Shewgenja: Where did those gamers go, in your view?

Well, if we look at what has happened in Japan and translate that to the American and European markets to some lesser degree, they went mobile.

Gamecube was a huge rebound of 3rd party support compared to N64 actually, which got little.

Gamecube got proper AAA third party games from brilliant developers in diverse genres. Medal Of Honour, Timesplitters, Burnout, Prince Of Persia, Resident Evil, Soul Calibur, Tony Hawk, Beyond Good And Evil, Tales Of Symphonia, Splinter Cell, a bunch of sports titles, and the list goes on. Obviously didn't come close to PS2 or even Xbox, but it's a hell of a lot more respectable than the rest of Nintendo's post SNES systems.

I think there's some truth to that, yes. What I find interesting though is that the gaming market overall has expanded over time. In 2011, it was worth $70.5 billion USD. By 2015, it had moved well over $100 billion USD.

So the market is continually growing, but definitely, gamers are looking to enjoy games across a wider variety of hardware platforms. I think that's why Nintendo is now looking at reaching out to mobile users as a way of enticing them to move into their core products.

@djura: I think the Switch has potential to be a mega hit.

Me too. I just hope Nintendo get the launch/launch window right! :-)

They need core gamers because they don't want a repeat of the Wii to WiiU transition. I know the Wii was a mega successful console and I'm sure Nintendo was happy with the way it printed money for them but look what followed after it, the casuals packed up and left. Casuals easily abandon platforms once the next big thing comes around and distracts them. Nintendo needs core gamers who are going to be there for next console releases and are usually loyal when their needs as gamers are being met. Ask Sony about this, it's the reason why Sony was able to bounce back after the initial disaster of the PS3 launch, they avoided a WiiU type of scenario because they still had core gamers and 3rd party support on their side even if it was diminished. Those core gamers stuck around after the PS3 and lead to the PS4 being a mega hit. Nintendo needs something like that.

@quadknight: What do you think happened to Vita? Can Sony bounce back from it? Did all the PSP core gamers abandon Sony and go to mobile? I think the answer might help with Nintendo's Wii U situation.

core gamers = early adopters. You have to court these people to spread word of mouth and show third parties that the base is there to sell content to. Its pretty simple.

This is pretty much the reason why Sony is so far ahead right now. Announcing the PS4, they spoke directly to these people while MS figured the 'core' group was already in their pocket and focused on media center functionality.

@wolverine4262: Or Sony just got lucky Xbox One and Wii U had such unappealing showcases.

Handheld market =/= console market.

Whatever happened with the Vita happened to it because handhelds are dying and most of the PSP base moved on to cellphone and tablets. Sony never had a chance in that aspect, the Vita was always gonna be a flop. Now with consoles, it's a different matter. Console core gamers aren't gonna be packing their bags to go play Candy Crush anytime soon. They want the deeper and more immersive experiences that only a console can give. If Nintendo can keep a strong core base they can insure that they always have something to fall back on if and when casuals abandon ship. Casuals are the most fickle when it comes down to fanbase, they don't stick around through thick and thin, and tend to go after what's cool and hip at the moment.

@quadknight: Yeah, I think it's like the analogy of having an entrée or a main meal. Sometimes you want that quick "on-the-go" experience and sometimes you want the deeper experience that requires some time and dedication.

This is why I also think it can be very easy to throw in comparisons between platforms that are superficially similar, but that actually offer quite different experiences. I see a lot of people automatically comparing the Switch to the iPhone/iPad simply because...well, it has a touch screen, I guess. But if you really think about the end user experience, the comparison starts to break down - the experiences are very different. Aside from anything else, the mere presence of the Joy-Con controllers out of the box already radically differentiates Switch from anything else (and certainly, they make it radically different than other "mobile" devices out there).

It's why I also get kind of puzzled when some PC gamers dismissively say stuff like "why would you ever want to play on a console when PC offers better graphics?" Well, yes, if you think of it in a one-dimensional sense...then sure, it's as simple as ones and zeroes. But in reality, you have to consider the entire experience and the way it pulls together from end-to-end. I think a lot of people don't actually consider that. :-)

@quadknight: Makes you wonder why the 3DS is doing so good and leading the industry in sales. You stated core Sony players wouldnt go from Sony to mobile but Vita was hurt by mobile? Not sure i understand.

I think Nintendo should cater to the casual mobile base to and try to get them to come back or use both. I actually like those games a bunch, theyre fun. I dont really play dudebro games.

@iandizion713: I'm talking about core Sony gamers on consoles not the PSP. I thought I made myself clear when I said console market and handheld market were different. The problem with PSP is that it never had that core audience, a lot of the people that gamed on PSP were casual or easily swayed by casual offerings on cell phones. Sony never developed the core audience on handhelds like Nintendo did with the DS. When cellphones arrived with powerful processors and good graphics a lot of people that would have bought the Vita decided to skip it (I was one of them). Sony doesn't have that problem with consoles though, they have had more than 20 years in the console business building up their core fanbase. People that like deeper games like Uncharted, Horizon, The Last Guardian, Bloodborne, etc. aren't going to be switching to Candy Crush on their tablets anytime soon to replace those core gaming experiences. Nintendo needs core gamers and a core fanbase for this very reason. These types of gamers are the most loyal and can't be easily stolen away by a new hot item. Casuals however, are easily swayed.

Yea the Switch is gonna offer way more than tablets or phones. I see it as a new totally different market with its own ability to develop a new type of core gamer. A core gamer that is going to be a hybrid of a handheld and console gamer. It could work out extremely well for Nintendo if they play their cards right.

I definitely see what you're saying about some PC gamers, it's definitely not only about the graphics. If it was, consoles would have been dead a long time ago. Consoles can provide a unique type of playing experience you just can't get with PC. I'm aware that modern PCs are becoming more plug and play and easy to set up but still they aren't quite as user friendly as consoles are and easy to get into. Modern consoles too are also becoming like PCs with their patches and mid-gen upgrades but they still have that simple plug and play element that is a bit lacking on PCs. I personally find it easy to switch between console gaming and PC gaming since I've been doing it since I was a toddler but I can see why people have their different preferences for each.

@quadknight: Dang thats strange, i always thought PSP users took pride in their coreness. But i understand now, Sony is done with handhelds, they have given up on their fans. Lets hope Nintendo can do a little better in catering and growing their core and casual bases.

@iandizion713: that's pretty much what I said. You aren't the sharpest crayon in the box...

@quadknight: I understand that getting the core gamer on board for launch is important. But I don't buy this retorhic that casuals got bored with their Wii's and moved on to tablets just because. The reason mobile has overtaken Nintendo in terms of casual gaming is because Nintendo handled the Wii U very poorly. It was too expensive and complex for the casual market, and too gimped and lackluster for the hardcore. Mobile devices offered much cheaper, and much better options for casual gamers, plus, phones have the benefit of being devices people already own.

Meanwhile, Nintendo was stuck with a bloated, confusing contraption filled with overpriced Wii rehashes. Which looks more appealing to the consumer. Nintendo failed to craft a strong brand and prepare for the future, and suffered before it, all they were left with was die-hard fans.

Getting the core audience day 1 is vital, but Nintendo can't afford to survive solely on whales, they need a broad consumer base at launch, and maintain a strong clear, brand message for years. Hell, you think the PlayStation 4 is selling solely to core gamers? No, it's also selling to people who want an entertainment machine with a gaming slant.

@TheMisterManGuy: Core gamers are willing to open their wallets if pandered to.

Take it away, Homer:

Evidence: The PlayStation family since it was born.

@nintendoboy16: Not the whole family, just the home console, the rest have failed.

Yes, the whole market has shifted in favour of PC:s, tablets and smartphones, if you haven't noticed. And those are the platforms that are being adopted in the emerging markets.

It is essentially a portable system with a mobile SoC. Of course it's going toe to toe with iOS and Android devices - tablets, primarily. And i seriously doubt it'll make the huge impact they [Nintendo] are expecting. If their games are not going to be relatively successful on their platform, if the platform itself is not going to be a success, it makes no sense for them financially to keep the games on their platform.

There is a sense in which the Switch is going up against mobile platforms, yes. I never suggested otherwise. You could also argue that PS4 and Xbox One are, on some level, competing with any platforms that play games.

What I'm saying is that the idea that Switch needs to sell even remotely in the ballpark of iPhone and iPad "to be considered a success" is a ridiculous standard. It compares apples with oranges, and it fails to understand the critical differences between these products. You seem to have walked that back a little bit now, which is probably wise.

Yeah, the main competition for the Xbox One and PS4 is the PC.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all for the reason I just stated. What differences are you referring to?

Either way, to say hardcore gamers aren't easily swayed as casuals is a bigger lie than anything Todd Howard spewed out his mouth. In fact, you have to be swayed to stay on the company you're most loyal too in the first place.

@doubutsuteki: The Switch will compete for a user's leisure time, which means that it will compete with a variety of products and services, not just game consoles. Yes, it will compete with iPhone and iPad to a degree - but only in as much as it competes with other things (like an Apple TV, or PC gaming, or other kinds of entertainment experiences). Rather than viewing this as a zero-sum question, it's better to think of it like a Venn diagram, where you have different levels of overlap between products.

Setting that aside for a moment, the Switch is a completely different product to the iPhone or iPad. I'd have thought this would be obvious on its face. An iPhone is a general-purpose computing device, not a dedicated gaming platform. It sells a billion units globally for this very reason - there are people who will play games on it, but most people won't buy an iPhone primarily for gaming. Gaming will be incidental for most users. Other elements, like photos and social media, will be closer to primary use cases.

The Switch is not a general purpose computing device in that same way. Its primary use case is gaming. And the kind of gaming experience it offers is radically different to an iPhone.

Does that make more sense? This is what I mean when I talk about critical differences between products. It makes zero sense to use the iPhone as some kind of standard to determine how many units the Switch should sell.

When so many "core" gamers dismiss Nintendo games as "kiddie", is it any surprise that Nintendo is focusing more on the casual market instead? Many "core" gamers want their games to look "adult" and despise anything that looks "kiddie". On the other hand, most casuals don't give a damn about whether a game looks "kiddie" or "adult". So it only makes sense that Nintendo is focusing more on the casual market, since that's a market where so-called "kiddie" games can thrive.

Exactly. So in reality, when "hardcore" gamers have pretty much hated Nintendo for a long time, there is basically no point for them AT ALL to appeal to them.

"hardcore" is such an enigmatic term in the first place. It means different things to different people.

The thing is that dedicated gaming devices are on their way out. On the upside, porting games from a device like the Switch that's built on the ARM architecture will be much, much easier than is the case porting games from Nintendo's previous platforms to mobile devices.

Wrong. Because it was they who insisted on making a clear-cut distinction between these two categories - "hardcore" and "casual". It's all their fault.

As I said, I think that Switch is definitely competing with more than just the "traditional" game consoles. Over time, it's reasonable to expect that mobile platforms will take a larger share of gaming revenue overall. I don't dispute that for a moment.

However, this still doesn't mean that Switch needs to sell 1 billion units to be considered a success. We're now talking about two different things here. I want to stress the importance of that comparison - in terms of literal sales - being bogus.

And as I said, a key reason why that comparison is bogus - at least in terms of direct sales comparisons - is because, despite the overlap (the Venn diagram I mentioned), we're still talking about different products with different focuses. Regardless of what happens with the market around dedicated gaming devices, the fact remains that the Switch isn't an iPhone or an iPad, and if we make those comparisons, we have to make the correct/logical comparisons. :)

Doesn't matter what the focus is, if one platform is able to replace another by virtues of offering more appeal - as proven by smartphones and tablets eating into Nintendo sales, reducing the audience for the Wii U to a mere 10% of that of the Wii.