Did the term "hardcore gamer" exist before... like in the 90s? I don't remember using it.

like me im an very long time Nintendo fan.. and i plan to leave it like that and devs are going to far, i extremely hate developers guts... i hope they rot in hell

The division will be only more prevalent when LBP, BK3 and both Natal and PSmote's game libraries fail to be successes at the end of this gen. Im talking success in Nintendo's terms now. Success where Wii Music's 4 million sales isn't considered good enough.

Where you see failure on Nintendo's move they, and MS and Sony, see previously unachievable success in new gamer adoption.

nope i dont remember using it either in the 90s.. i cant even remember it last generation, i swear it just randomly came around this gen

Pretty much said everything that needed to be said.

Also, when Nintendo has already released more 'core' games than they did on the GameCube in less than 3 years and is about to surpass the N64 in less than 4, I have no idea why people can keep saying they aren't appealing to the 'core' gamer.  The only thing I can figure is, these are the types of people who are comparing the Wii to the 360/PS3 or cry fowl that not every game Nintendo makes is at the level of Ocarina of Time (in other words, people mad at their 'Wii' line of games like WiiFit and WiiMusic).

The term 'hardcore' was put to gaming in the early 90s, by devs of FPS and action titles (mostly PC) to set their titles apart from other types of games.  The term was mostly meant to signify the game was meant to be more 'intense' to play and has a more adult theme to it.  Sadly, its taken on many more meanings since such as people claiming a game is Hardcore if it has blood and cussing or its hardcore only if its hard or its hardcore because you spend hundreds of hours playing it, etc.

I am wondering if there's drugs going around or something? Nintendo isn't failing this generation; they've been doing better than any generation they have ever participated in during the past; and in fact any videogame company period.

There were no "Core gamers" during the NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube eras, just a bunch of kids; it was parents that kept those systems afloat; and a small number of people who kept a Nintendo system around as a secondary console. Wii is the first system to break that trend and expand to a larger adult audience. It's not like Nintendo hasn't released their main franchises this generation, they've released almost all of them (or are going to) and made most of their old games available.

The labels "Core gamer" or "hardcore gamer" are just a title that PC type gamers made up so they can feel better about their losing system. Sorry, but it is a fact that Nintendo is WAY WAY ahead in both hardware and software sales and that PS3 is just a shadow of the PS2. There's nothing "hardcore" about sitting at home for 7 hours a day playing a reptetetive first person shooter while bulking up on pizza pops and doritos.

In other words, people who call themselves "core gamer" or "hardcore" are just pretentious nerds who want to justify their support of a losing system on the Internet.

If you're a Nintendo fan drinking that kool-ade: Stop being retarded.

It's probably just a transition phase where the costs for the upper tier have balooned but the whole press/retail/distribution system has not adjusted or found an equilibrium between the different tiers. You can still produce games on the HD consoles and PC with $3-5M and aiming at 200-300K sales, but then it's very hard to enter a market saturated with huge projects. Look at the japanese market for JRPGs and you'll see lots of smaller projects still being born on the PS3, because their specialized market is not that oppressive.

Just like there are theaters specialized in cinema d'essai, and you don't pit a niche movie and a summer blockbuster directly, so the smaller games will have to find alternative ways to be distributed and promoted. I'm frankly not that worried: projects for which the authors are strongly motivated will endure the financial distress more than bombastic run-of-the-mill moneymakers. Plus, we're going towards pervasive low-cost network distribution and things like the "japan import" channel we heard about in the SEGA-Sony meeting, Steam, etc. would likely be able to save the day even if retailers and mainstream press are slow to adapt.

Nearly everone on this site is a core gamer and there are enough Nintendo fans, so Nintendo hasn't lost the core.

Hate to break it to you Onimusha, but Nintendo lost the core market 15 years ago. The diehard fans are still with them and will be as long as the first party franchises are. And those guys are probably used to getting shafted by third parties by now.

The analogy with "cinema d'essai" is quite good, and the same could be said with many musical styles, and many artistic expressions...

Im' working in the music business, especially jazz and world music... and how many singers/groups are sellin' one million of albums? Nearly none for these "niche" genres... does it mean all the groups/artists sellin' only a few thousands copies are totally irrelevant and should quit music (or cinema, or litterature, or any other art form)? Of course not...

But now, if the production costs for an album were suddenly 200% or 300% more expensive, and sales hard to get in a saturated market, i can tell you many artists would suffer, many artists who by the way, deserve to make a good living out of their artistic production...

If videogames become like the biggest and most expensive cinema blockbusters, how are they supposed to be viable? A movie may have a potential 500 million, if not one billion userbase, thanks to all the theaters and all the dvd players around the world... how could games support high costs for a 20-30 million max userbase? I think it's a good question, and i don't know if the people in this industry have a good answer...

But you're right, digital distribution may save "niche" games in a near future... it's a good solution, if prices are correct...