@axumblade: It seems you didn't "get" the idea. If we look at the games 20 years ago (and beyond), you could say that nearly all the games were "bridged" games, meaning that they were easy to pick up and play for everyone, but had enough challenge and stuff to do even for the most demanding gamer.
Now, let's take a look at the recent games; the games have evolved in more "hardcore" direction, they aren't easy to pick up and play, they require a high learning curve. This have caused certain audience to flee, so the game makers have needed to do something, so they have toned down the challenge, leading to easy games with high learning curve. And when you look at Nintendos games, they still use the same formula as they did 20-30 years ago and there's a reason for it (which shows that Nintendo will never make a "casual" console): Although the "casual" audience is huge, much bigger than the "hardcore" audience, there still are millions of gamers outside the "casual" group and even more when the audience expands, because some will become as "casual" and some as "hardcore". Catering only one group leaves a lot of money on the table. Now, imagine that you're going to make games for both of these groups, with a budget of 15M each, you're ending up having 30M budget, when you could make a "bridged" game with 15M, which caters the whole range of audience (or two games with 30M, which both reach all the gamers).
Well, it looks like my explanation turned out to be pretty bad, but i hope you get the idea that financially it makes no sense trying to cater only some of the people (who basically buys less games) when you could cater everyone. Besides, in reality, who you would want to cater to, is the core audience (which is defined by what games sell), not "casual" or "hardcore".
Ei Kiinasti.
Eikä Japanisti.
Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.
Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.
