Miyamoto tries to quell hardcores' fears

[Zeus]

Why Nintendo is appealing to casuals and why gamers (hello, Sine) shouldn't be threatened

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3167954

Not really sure if I agree with the "better environment" comment at the end, but the point is, it's not one or the other, it can be both

[SineSwiper]

Many gamers reject the notion that games need saving. The industry's profits are blossoming even as the global economy withers on the vine. But games are hardly the first medium to thrive on the enthusiasm (and liberal spending habits) of young men, and the fate of former "sure things" demonstrates that short-term success is no guarantee of long-term health. The comics industry was flush with cash in the early '90s but soon marginalized itself; the music industry is currently wracked by what could well be its death throes. Miyamoto's own frame of reference is Japan, where console gaming is dying a sad, slow death as gamers who made the PlayStation a 32-bit colossus move along to new and different pastimes.

What drugs is this person on? Gaming has been, and always will be, an evergrowing industry outside the domain of a "fad". It's almost as big as movies at this point. Way to build a straw man to knock down. There is no problem, like the gamers have been saying.

And who the hell claims that music is in its "death throes"? What? Are we just going to stop making music? What? It's changing into a new model, but it's not dying out. Man, what an idiot! At that's not even Miyamoto at this point, who btw I consider a partial party to a commentary like this.

Miyamoto doesn't really "answer our fears". In fact, it doesn't even really acknowledge it as a problem. "Better environment for our hobby?" No, you were just trying to find a new source of cashflow. Quit trying to justify the position with pretty words.

[Julius Seeker]

Many gamers reject the notion that games need saving. The industry's profits are blossoming even as the global economy withers on the vine. But games are hardly the first medium to thrive on the enthusiasm (and liberal spending habits) of young men, and the fate of former "sure things" demonstrates that short-term success is no guarantee of long-term health. The comics industry was flush with cash in the early '90s but soon marginalized itself; the music industry is currently wracked by what could well be its death throes. Miyamoto's own frame of reference is Japan, where console gaming is dying a sad, slow death as gamers who made the PlayStation a 32-bit colossus move along to new and different pastimes.

What drugs is this person on? Gaming has been, and always will be, an evergrowing industry.

In Japan it was shrinking every year until the DS and Wii came along.

[RentCavalier]

OH SNAP

[SineSwiper]

In Japan it was shrinking every year until the DS and Wii came along.

Yeah, because they didn't have console that gave them enough Japanese tentacle porn.

Seriously, the PS2 and GameCube both did extremely well in Japan. The PS3 and PSP both had a really lackluster launch. Of course, the time in-between those would be a "shrinking market", but that goes for any next-gen release cycle. The 360 launched around the same time as the PS3, but the Japanese are too damned xenophobic for that console. Thus, the Wii came out, and they could jack off to Mario and Zelda all they wanted.

[Zeus]

It is a very Japanese-centric view since the Jap market had been shrinking for the last few years prior to the release of the DS and Wii and the resurgence of the PSP, but there are some valid points made.

First, the games industry only makes more than the box office in movies, it's still doesn't have nearly the reach movies do. Everyone here would know well that home viewings are huge now, at least half the market. Add in DVD sales and rentals and the movies industry is still significantly larger. I doubt the games industry will ever have quite the reach of movies.

Second, until the release of the Wii, gaming was dominated by about a 15-34 demographic for consoles. You could count on a significant portion of your sales from that group. So yes, it was growing, but that growth was gonna start to hit diminishing growth at some point soon in the US if the core demographic wasn't expanded. There's only so much you can get out of that market even if it does expand to, say, 40 year olds. Because it had already started to happen in Japan, who's business cycle had started much earlier and was already in the mature stage, we've seen the industry react.

Third, music revenue have been decreasing significantly in the last 5 years or so. The increase in digital downloads sure as hell ain't helping the sale of albums, it's just giving the consumer more choice to just get the song or two they want rather than waste money on a whole album. The power has definitely shifted to the consumers there and because of that, the margins are quite low. Why do you think you're seeing less and less "different" music in the mainstream? Of course, downloading don't help either. This is what the movie industry is shitting themselves over but so far, DVD sales have stayed pretty strong.

Fourth, the GC wasn't that successful in Japan either. It was actually pretty lackluster all over the world.

Of course they're trying to find a new source of cashflow, every company who expects to survive in the long term does. They've serviced their core while expanding to new markets. Ain't nothin' wrong with that

[SineSwiper]

It is a very Japanese-centric view since the Jap market had been shrinking for the last few years prior to the release of the DS and Wii and the resurgence of the PSP, but there are some valid points made.

Again, how is that different than any console cycle? As the new shit comes in, people clamper to buy it. Also, if the consoles available just aren't providing enough to the public (GC, Xbox 1, PS3), yes, the market will start to falter, but that is by no means an indicator that "gaming as we know it was going to collapse", like the article implies.

First, the games industry only makes more than the box office in movies, it's still doesn't have nearly the reach movies do. Everyone here would know well that home viewings are huge now, at least half the market. Add in DVD sales and rentals and the movies industry is still significantly larger. I doubt the games industry will ever have quite the reach of movies.

Second, until the release of the Wii, gaming was dominated by about a 15-34 demographic for consoles. You could count on a significant portion of your sales from that group. So yes, it was growing, but that growth was gonna start to hit diminishing growth at some point soon in the US if the core demographic wasn't expanded. There's only so much you can get out of that market even if it does expand to, say, 40 year olds. Because it had already started to happen in Japan, who's business cycle had started much earlier and was already in the mature stage, we've seen the industry react.

Zeus, I'm not debating the why Nintendo decided to hit the casual audience. Yes, it's a cash cow. Nobody's is arguing against that. What I'm debating is that Nintendo is not focusing enough on core gamers.

Back to your first point, the DS, Wii, and 360 have all had a huge impact on the gaming industry. The Wii introduced a lot of people into the gaming world. The DS was an extension of that project, but unlike the Wii, the DS did a good job of keeping the core gamers in the fold.

The 360 proved that a console can be successful and not be full of Japanese games. Plus, with the best online service of the three, gaming doesn't have to be isolated to $50 store-boughts. No, it's not trying to attract the casuals, but it's dominating the core gamer market and slowly building future gamers in.

What market is the 360 failing in? Japan. The Japanese somehow feel cheated that a console isn't catering to their special needs. Yes, the rest of the world can play their games, but the Japanese just can't play ours. Again, that point I kept driving home: Japanese xenophobia. Proving my point is the best selling Japanese 360 game: Blue Fucking Dragon (by a far margin), a game that wouldn't have even made a Top 30 list in the US.

Fourth, the GC wasn't that successful in Japan either. It was actually pretty lackluster all over the world.

Probably true. (I didn't get it until many years after launch.) However, like the PSX, the PS2 was the dominator of that console war.

Of course they're trying to find a new source of cashflow, every company who expects to survive in the long term does. They've serviced their core while expanding to new markets. Ain't nothin' wrong with that

And this is, again, what I disagree with. The Wii alienated the core gamers with several mistakes:

1. Lack of third-party exclusives. There is a serious hole here, and the core gamers really notice. The games that are third-party aren't exclusive. The games that are exclusive are made by Nintendo. And the few third-party exclusive games are catered towards the casual market. Games like Tiger Woods Golf, or Mario/Sonic (still a first-party, IMO), or Carnival Games, or Rayman Raving Rabbids. The only ones that really hit into a gamer's tastes are games like RE:UC, Red Steel, or No More Heroes, but these are far from best-sellers.

2. The controller. Yes, the very thing that makes it so appealing is what drives away a lot of core gamers in the end. The design is not ergo friendly at all, and the drastic shift really forces away people who are used to a standard controller. It would be like designing a DS that ONLY used the stylus.

3. Lack of HD. The core gamer audience is jumping on-board with HDTV technology, as most core gamers are also technogeeks. The casuals, OTOH, generally don't have a HDTV, and wouldn't bother to spend $400-500 on a console. Thus, since the decision fell in favor of the casuals, this caused another deep divide between the two.

4. Shitty online service. Seriously, why force people to memorize a 16-digit Wii code, and don't bother to include an invite system? That really turned off gamers who wanted to be able to play a console that was designed for online service. The fact that there were no original downloadable games (only the oldie stuff) didn't help, either. Virtual Console was a lousy attempt at trying to toss a bone to core gamers.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

2. The controller. Yes, the very thing that makes it so appealing is what drives away a lot of core gamers in the end. The design is not ergo friendly at all, and the drastic shift really forces away people who are used to a standard controller. It would be like designing a DS that ONLY used the stylus.

Its utility for actually playing games aside, just for having separated left and right-hand controllers, the Wii remote is actually the most ergonomic game controller... uh, ever, I'm pretty sure.

[Zeus]

I ain't gonna quote THAT...

It's different in that there was steady decline in the Japanese market for a few years, not just near the end of the cycle. And the Wii and DS seemed to expand to another market there, particularly women. That's why the DS sold to 1 in 6 Japs, that's pretty fucking huge, much more so than any handheld in the past. The PSP seems to have been rediscovered there recently too and it was slow for a couple of years. The Wii has had the same effect there as it has here but not to quite the extent. If you read the way the Jap developers are talking in interviews, you can see what I mean.

My point with the Wii and DS is that there's actual empirical evidence now to support the fact that it's expanding the market beyond the core demographic. It's not just a Sony-type baseless claim they're making. If you want, I can start point out the articles and linking them here but I'm sure you've seen enough of them. It wasn't a "Nintendo's hitting the casuals for a cash cow" argument, it was to show that it was a different type of growth that simply "the numbers are getting bigger" like all the record-setting years of late. That was the point of that.

And I agree with the Japanese xenophobia, but really, how different is that from other Asian countries? I gotta get my some hard numbers, but I believe the 360's starting to really fall behind the PS3 and Wii in Europe, both of which are doing well over there.

The lack of third-party exclusives is due to a couple of reasons:
1) Developer wariness - very few developers jumped on board the Wii in the beginning. Like me, they thought it would be a fun gimmick but not really take off like it did. Also, it didn't have the huge horsepower for the flashy games that are important. But that's changing, TONS of exclusives have been announced and are coming (don't underestimate Monster Hunter 3 in Japan, look what 2 did for the PSP).
2) Normal developer cycle - it takes what, 18 month minimum to make games now, at least decent ones? So if they get the kits no earlier than 6 months before the system's coming out, you're not expecting to see many third-party games early. So you're expecting, aside from a few selected third party developers, that the majority of big titles will be first party. Heck, look at the 360. Aside from Oblivion and a couple Capcom games, what did they really have before the second-party Gears? The first year on the 360 was pretty slow

The controller is different, yes, but even Nintendo's supported the GC controller with its two biggest hardcore games in Mario Kart and Smash Bros. Can't really cry too hard on that one, it's there if needed.

I don't care about HD when games look like Galaxy.

Online is a hardcore thing and they're working on it. Hell, they've got as good or better than Sony, definitely better in all non-gaming aspects. It's just that they're both far behind M$. That's M$'s competitive advantage but considering those fleecing fucks are charging me to play online, it means nothing to me anyways.

I'll definitely give you that they don't touch M$ in that regard. But how many hardcores are online? About half of the gamers I know aren't online and they play as much as me or you. It's something they need to work on and they are, but I don't think it's as far-reaching a problem as the loud nerds on the internet are making it out to be. It's the same with Blu-Ray vs DVD argument. Sure Blu-Ray is better, much better, but how many people truly care?