Apparent sources are saying that at E3 Nintendo will anounce a return to its hardcore audience, but is this the right move? Nintendo's hardcore audience is different to the hardcore audiences of the other consoles, the hardcore audience of Nintendo are the fans of Metroid other M and Zelda. These franchises have appeared on the Wii, so not sure whether a move to a market dedicated on these titles would alienate there mass fan base of casual gamers?
Should Nintendo go back to its hardcore audience?
I honestly don't know. Controlling a large piece of the hardcore audience means having a lot of third party developer influence, which Nintendo hasn't had much of for a very long time and has even less now. It would be pretty hard to go back into the ring with Microsoft and Sony and not just be the Gamecube all over again in terms of sales.
Dunno.
Though I don't really consider myself "hardcore" they would have to deviate pretty far from the Wii plan to get me giving them my monies again.
I don't know, I think that most of Nintendo's carryover hardcore audience from the previous consoles have seen the last few years on the direction that Nintendo has been going with their games & churn most of the games out to shovelware developers (or good developers with shovelware amounts of time/$/staff to make these games). If Nintendo pushes too much for the hardcore audience, they might lose all the money on the next console or future games from all the casual people who bought the Wii in droves.
"Nintendo has a hardcore audience?That's exactly what I was thinking. They've always been about reaching a casual audience.Really, besides Japan do they really? "
Hardcore gamers work 15 hours a week at Payless, they don't have the income to sustain a modern console alone. Its one market of many. "Hardcore gamer" is just code for "insular male who doesn't go outside much" and casual gamer is just code for "girls and etc." Its no wonder so many hardcores hate casuals, they need to get their kooty shot.
Do you think they could go after the hardcore audience of PS3 and 360 or are they too engrained in consoles by this point?
This question came about after reading this article on Gamesradar
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/why-the-return-of-hardcore-old-nintendo-is-looking-increasingly-likely/a-2011050511513846086
So the people who purchased Wii Sports and Kinect Sports and Dance Central and Mario Bros Wii didn't "actually" buy games. So what did they do, barter? 2 cows for 3 games? Sony and MS spent a lot of time and money to get into a market full of people who don't actually buy games, huh." @ryanwho said:
" Hardcore gamers work 15 hours a week at Payless, they don't have the income to sustain a modern console. Its one market of many. "Hardcore gamer" is just code for "insular male who doesn't go outside much" and casual gamer is just code for "girls and etc." "I think the OP intends "hardcore" to mean "people who actually buy games and play them," as opposed to Nintendo's current audience. Thanks for the super-useful vocab lesson though! "
" Hardcore gamers work 15 hours a week at Payless, they don't have the income to sustain a modern console alone. Its one market of many. "Hardcore gamer" is just code for "insular male who doesn't go outside much" and casual gamer is just code for "girls and etc." Its no wonder so many hardcores hate casuals, they need to get their kooty shot. "I think that's generalizing just a tad too much. I dislike the terms too, but they'll have to suffice..
"Hardcores", what can I say.
There has always been people against or not interested in Nintendo, it just more apparent now than ever thanks to the internet. A quick look around and you will find people that truly enjoyed the core Nintendo games this gen and they also sold well.
They can also not ignore the "casuals" anymore, lets be honest, like things is now the industry, it needs to expand outside "the hardcores" that you find on forums.
So what is left for them to do to achieve their goal ? It would be making it easier for other developers or do as Sony and buy studios.
Who defines proper? iphone and ipad games have far more in common with how early games worked than your multi million dollar rollercoaster shooter. I guess a hardcore gamer is someone who thinks there's such a thing as a "proper game". The fact is, this is a term that exists because a group of people want to create an arbitrary distinction and levy their superiority. So yeah, that's fucking insular." @ryanwho said:
" Hardcore gamers work 15 hours a week at Payless, they don't have the income to sustain a modern console alone. Its one market of many. "Hardcore gamer" is just code for "insular male who doesn't go outside much" and casual gamer is just code for "girls and etc." Its no wonder so many hardcores hate casuals, they need to get their kooty shot. "I think that's generalizing just a tad too much. I dislike the terms too, but they'll have to suffice..
Plenty of people who are serious about gaming aren't "insular males who don't go outside" and just want to play proper games, not party games, facebook games or other casual games which only exist as 5 minute time wasters. I personally don't hate these games, but I don't care to play them. I think Nintendo can go back to making systems that appeal to hardcore gamers, while still having the mass appeal of the Wii. I'm pretty sure that's going to be their aim with their new system. Casual gamers bring in huge sales, but they don't buy much in the way of software, so it makes sense that they're going to go back to making more powerful systems that can compete with the other two.
"
I'm not sure they ever lost them. I've been playing Nintendo games and consoles since the NES. I've adored my time with the Wii, and I'm looking forward to Nintendo's next console. I do miss some franchises that didn't make it to the Wii, F-Zero and Mario Golf being two of my favorites, but I don't run the company.
Again, maybe these are poor terms, but what do you want me to call them?" @WinterSnowblind said:
Who defines proper? iphone and ipad games have far more in common with how early games worked than your multi million dollar rollercoaster shooter. I guess a hardcore gamer is someone who thinks there's such a thing as a "proper game". The fact is, this is a term that exists because a group of people want to create an arbitrary distinction and levy their superiority. So yeah, that's fucking insular. "" @ryanwho said:
" Hardcore gamers work 15 hours a week at Payless, they don't have the income to sustain a modern console alone. Its one market of many. "Hardcore gamer" is just code for "insular male who doesn't go outside much" and casual gamer is just code for "girls and etc." Its no wonder so many hardcores hate casuals, they need to get their kooty shot. "I think that's generalizing just a tad too much. I dislike the terms too, but they'll have to suffice..
Plenty of people who are serious about gaming aren't "insular males who don't go outside" and just want to play proper games, not party games, facebook games or other casual games which only exist as 5 minute time wasters. I personally don't hate these games, but I don't care to play them. I think Nintendo can go back to making systems that appeal to hardcore gamers, while still having the mass appeal of the Wii. I'm pretty sure that's going to be their aim with their new system. Casual gamers bring in huge sales, but they don't buy much in the way of software, so it makes sense that they're going to go back to making more powerful systems that can compete with the other two.
"
I fucking hate the term "hardcore" so much.
It implies that somehow the individuals who play Call of Duty 10 hours a day on their X360s have more to say /their opinion is more relevant than that of a gamer who enjoys his Mario Galaxy once or twice a week.
People then proceed to call gamers who, let's say, love Kirby's Epic Yarn "casual" and "childish", and the Wii "a console for kids".
" Frankly, I don't think they even know how to go back. The world has changed. Gaming has changed. All Nintendo knows how to do now is iterate on 3 basic games (Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64 and Mario [Insert sport here]) and find new gimmicks for the casual crowd. "What about Prime? If they added blood and RPG elements to Prime would your stupid ass be happy? Innovation guys.
How about people who completed Galaxy and Galaxy 2, people who enjoyed Prime, people who play any Intelligent Systems game, F Zero GX fans, Smash Bros fans, Earthbound/Mother fans. Seriously, what the fuck are you people looking for? Is it just the M rating? Seems like that's the key component. Cus its clearly not challenge, most "hardcore" games are easy as shit. They're just bloody. So you want Nintendo to make easier games for you and add blood?" What is Nintendo's "hardcore audience"? "
You know what I hate? The term 'hardcore'. You know what happens when you only make games the 'hardcore' want to the degree that most 'hardcore' fans want? Your company becomes Activision and you make certain 'hardcore' games annually like Call of Duty until the 'hardcore' doesn't want that game anymore like the Tony Hawk games.
I think Nintendo and every other developer should make games that are creative, interesting and fun and stop trying to cater to specific audiences. If the game is good the audiences will be there. But as soon as you start solely focusing on what type of audience you want the audience you're looking for, like the 'hardcore', may not be there or won't be there for long. Again, Activision can get the 'hardcore' audience for a short time period but sooner or later those fans leave because Activision drops creativity for repeat, successful gameplay mechanics. I think, for the long term, successful publishers will ask their developers to create good, quality games that are, in one way or another, unique even if the franchise that game is from is old. I think Nintendo has done this really well. Another publisher that has done this well is Sony. Neither company has relied on one or two sets of gameplay mechanics to sell games. Rather, they ask their developers to make quality games knowing that quality will lead to sales in the short and long term.
I think Nintendo's biggest concern is getting solid and consistent third party support and quality third party exclusives. Nintendo can't control the games the third parties make but they can influence whether those games appear on their system. I think Nintendo's next system may live or die based on the third party support.
" @Enigma777 said:Easy on the vagina itching, son. Prime sold like shit which is why we won't ever see it again and instead get crap like Other M." Frankly, I don't think they even know how to go back. The world has changed. Gaming has changed. All Nintendo knows how to do now is iterate on 3 basic games (Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64 and Mario [Insert sport here]) and find new gimmicks for the casual crowd. "What about Prime? If they added blood and RPG elements to Prime would your stupid ass be happy? Innovation guys. "
" @ryanwho said:I think the first Prime sold fairly well. Those games didn't sell because they weren't advertised anywhere and Metroid isn't a strong enough brand name to stand on its own like Mario or Zelda." @Enigma777 said:Easy on the vagina itching, son. Prime sold like shit which is why we won't ever see it again and instead get crap like Other M. "" Frankly, I don't think they even know how to go back. The world has changed. Gaming has changed. All Nintendo knows how to do now is iterate on 3 basic games (Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64 and Mario [Insert sport here]) and find new gimmicks for the casual crowd. "What about Prime? If they added blood and RPG elements to Prime would your stupid ass be happy? Innovation guys. "
2D Mario, 2D Zelda, 2D Metroid, 3D Metroid, DKC, Star Fox, F-Zero, Pikmin, Kirby, Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Wario, Yoshi, Paper Mario, Mario Party, Smash Bros." Frankly, I don't think they even know how to go back. The world has changed. Gaming has changed. All Nintendo knows how to do now is iterate on 3 basic games (Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64 and Mario [Insert sport here]) and find new gimmicks for the casual crowd. "
Nintendo has a ton of different series. That's more than any other first party company. The games themselves might be upgrades and iterations of their predecessors in their own series, but Nintendo randomly tries much more experimental things with these characters than most other first parties do with theirs. Just because they use the same characters doesn't mean that games like Kirby's Epic Yarn, Wind Waker, Pokemon Snap, Yoshi's Tilt 'N' Tumble, Warioware, Star Fox Command, Luigi's Mansion, Super Princess Peach, and Phantom Hourglass didn't try something new. Some of those games were unsuccessful, some of them added one innovative or unique feature to an otherwise normal edition of that series in order to ease people into it, but the games I listed all tried something new with their core franchises. Some of them wound up being successful and integrated into the series or spun off into their own series, but people act like just because Mario is in Dr. Mario, Mario Kart, and Super Mario Galaxy that all these games are functionally the same.
Microsoft has changed up the Halo franchise once, with Halo Wars, and it doesn't look like they'll ever do that again. Gears of War games are all the same. God of War games are all the same. Uncharted games are all the same. I don't get why Nintendo gets this complaint more than the other companies. Maybe just because their franchises have been around longer? Hell, the main problems that people have had with console Zeldas recently are that they listened to their fans. Majora's Mask tried something really different, but it wasn't epic enough compared to Ocarina of Time, so we got Wind Waker. Wind Waker was too kiddy, we wanted the mature Zelda we were promised at the Gamecube launch, and it still wasn't enough like Ocarina of Time, so we got Twilight Princess. Twilight Princess was too dark and too much like Ocarina of Time, now we want a mix of Ocarina and Wind Waker, so we're getting Skyward Sword. People are already complaining about the "realistic" cel-shading in the new Zelda and the fact that they are trying full-on motion controls. While the core of these 5 Zelda games are pretty similar, (enter dungeon, find item, use item on boss), the way they're presented are pretty bold differences that other companies don't usually take with their franchises.
Nintendo is one of the most innovative companies in the business, but they get shit because the innovations are usually tied to core franchises and are usually unveiled one feature at a time. They take more risks with the presentation and tone of their series' than other companies, too. When they try something radically new, people tend to hate it initially, and by the time the next system is released, their praising the "genius" of the game they used to hate.
" Not if they like making money. "Since you seem to know what this "hardcore audience" that they're abandoning is, maybe you could explain it to me. This hardcore audience that apparently doesn't make them any money.
Not sure what nintendo could do to get me to purchase their next system. I bought the Wii on day one and cannot recall the last time i actually played it (it might have been Christmas '09 when i played about 20 minutes of New Super Mario Brothers).
A new mario, zelda, or metroid is not going to do it for me. 5 Years ago i could not imagine saying that but it's true. I just don't care about the core nintendo line of characters any more. Either i am getting old (37) or nintendo is.
I'm not saying they're ditching the core audience because every so often they release a game like Donkey Kong Country or Mario Galaxy. The Wii is very profitable. Not because of the core audience, it is because of the millions of people who bought a WIi for their grandparents or their mothers, etc. which is, in essence, the casual audience. Nintendo returning to the core audience would result in them losing this audience restricting the amount of money they can make. Ultimately, Nintendo is still another corporation whose priority it is to make money. Should Nintendo go "back" to it's hardcore audience? They never left. They've just been distant and noncommittal.
[I hope that didn't sound pretentious.]
" Not if they like making money. "Except they aren't making money (as much as they could, to be more proper) which is why they're considering this change. Do you think they just pulled their next decision out of a hat without doing any research?
Their system sales (which don't give much revenue as they intended to go for a low selling system that'd sell more) are high, but their game sales are beyond abysmal. Money is mostly made off of game sales. Furthermore, their system isn't selling enough anymore to give enough of a profit anyway.
Trying to get back in touch with people who actually buy games while hoping to retain some of the bandwagoners or non-core gamers or whatever the fuck you want to call them that doesn't offend your sensibilities is the only logical conclusion.. if they like making money.
" @blueaniman93 said:
Except they aren't making money (as much as they could, to be more proper) which is why they're considering this change. Do you think they just pulled their next decision out of a hat without doing any research?Their system sales (which don't give much revenue as they intended to go for a low selling system that'd sell more) are high, but their game sales are beyond abysmal. Money is mostly made off of game sales. Furthermore, their system isn't selling enough anymore to give enough of a profit anyway.Trying to get back in touch with people who actually buy games while hoping to retain some of the bandwagoners or non-core gamers or whatever the fuck you want to call them that doesn't offend your sensibilities is the only logical conclusion.. if they like making money. "" Not if they like making money. "
- Wii Sports (45.71 million) (April 2009)
- Wii Play (22.98 million) (April 2009)
- Wii Fit (18.22 million) (April 2009)
- Mario Kart Wii (15.40 million) (April 2009)
- Super Smash Bros. Brawl (8.43 million) (April 2009)
- Super Mario Galaxy (8.02 million) (April 2009)
- Mario Party 8 (6.72 million) (April 2009)
- The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (4.52 million) (March 2008)
- Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (3.4 million) (March 2008)
- Link's Crossbow Training (3.76 million) (April 2009)
Over 54 games that are million+ sellers. They're still making more of a profit on Wii system sales than any of their competitors. Their sales dropped in relation to where they were last year, not in relation to the industry as a whole.
The majority of their games (and are you really counting wii sports?) are not core games and as such games that sell for significantly less than the standard game price, or are free/bundles. I should have included cost and value in my post. Furthermore, their 3rd party sales are extremely bad (none of the games in the top ten there are 3rd party for example, except maybe Mario & sonic which I have no clue about). They probably want to raise this, as they are, of course, high profits for low cost." @Pinworm45 said:
" @blueaniman93 said:
Except they aren't making money (as much as they could, to be more proper) which is why they're considering this change. Do you think they just pulled their next decision out of a hat without doing any research?Their system sales (which don't give much revenue as they intended to go for a low selling system that'd sell more) are high, but their game sales are beyond abysmal. Money is mostly made off of game sales. Furthermore, their system isn't selling enough anymore to give enough of a profit anyway.Trying to get back in touch with people who actually buy games while hoping to retain some of the bandwagoners or non-core gamers or whatever the fuck you want to call them that doesn't offend your sensibilities is the only logical conclusion.. if they like making money. "" Not if they like making money. "
- Wii Sports (45.71 million) (April 2009)
- Wii Play (22.98 million) (April 2009)
- Wii Fit (18.22 million) (April 2009)
- Mario Kart Wii (15.40 million) (April 2009)
- Super Smash Bros. Brawl (8.43 million) (April 2009)
- Super Mario Galaxy (8.02 million) (April 2009)
- Mario Party 8 (6.72 million) (April 2009)
- The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (4.52 million) (March 2008)
- Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (3.4 million) (March 2008)
- Link's Crossbow Training (3.76 million) (April 2009)
Over 54 games that are million+ sellers.
"
Again, they aren't making this decision for no reason, if they are in fact making it.
Edit: Nintendo total game sales are also very close too even or possibly even under the total 360 game sales. Can't be assed to look deeper than WIkipedia which has out of date 360 sales and up to date wii sales. I think my point still stands, especially given that these games are selling for far less.
" @Kjellm87 said:I think 3 didn't sell all that bad, it reviewed better than two that's for sure" @Enigma777: We're talkin Metroid Prime right? If the internet is true it sold 250,000 units in just one week. "I was talking about the Prime series as a whole, not just the first game. Prime 3 was a colossal failure sales-wise and 2 didn't fare much better. "
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment