Piracy is the real reason why core games on Wii don't sell as well?

[theprof00]

RolStoppable said:

kitler53 said:

RolStoppable said:
No, piracy is not a legitimate excuse.

First off, when someone says that core games don't sell on the Wii, then that usually refers to third party software. Nintendo's games sell, so it really is a question of quality. First party software sets the standard for what gamers expect from a full price product. The list of third party core games that are comparable to Nintendo's offerings in terms of the overall package (quality, content, longevity etc.) is incredibly short, so it shouldn't be surprising that many people hold off of a purchase until these third party titles reach a more appropriate price point.

It's really not that different when compared to the HD consoles where gamers also pass on short games until they drop in price.

which core-centric nintendo games are selling all that well? fire-emblem, BWii, and disaster didn't do so hot.  Metroid did pretty good so i'll give you that one.  after that nintendo doesn't really make core-centric games, nintendo makes cross over games.

anedocal evidence i know but i have a couple friends that are pirates.  they "own" a lot of wii games but they pirated all of them (yes, including nintendo games) but they have purchased ~10ish ps3 games (for the simple reason they can't pirate them).  i don't know exactly how bad piracy is on the wii but from what I can tell it's not that hard to pirate wii games.  ..and the guys that are pirates just so happen to the "core gamers" as well.

I see, the definition of core games is everchanging to keep up the illusion that core games don't sell on the Wii.

I guess titles with a history of about 20 years like NSMB Wii and Mario Kart Wii have to be excluded because they are bringing in new people. Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Twilight Princess don't count because... well, I have no idea why not. On the other hand BWii qualifies despite its cartoony graphics style, I guess it counts because it didn't sell well.

Enlighten me with your definition of core games that somehow excludes 3D Mario, Zelda and the like and at the same time includes the major blockbuster games on the HD consoles.

It's simple. Our definition of core is the population that has been described by it for the past 3 gens. This is the gen where core changed. That's why I urge people to use the term "traditional core". The term "core" has become so obfuscated by both sides, that it is necessary to abandon the term in favor of a more detailed one.

The reason why core has been interpreted so wildly is because of the term hardcore. Hardcore has been around forever, so there's no real debate on where the word came from. Hardcore was that kid who always was at home playing vg and always had great math grades. It was labeled onto those people who seemed to be able to do the impossible in a game. "I'm hardcore", was the call of the elite who could beat civilization 2 on deity, double your highest tetris level, etc etc etc. Then, the logical following was that core was more "normal", more average (ie more mainstream). For the next 3 gens, we all knew what core was. It was loosely defined as "a game that another gamer would know". They were simply "known games".

This gen changed all that because the core games from this gen are so radically different from the types of core that we used to know. So while wii sports and wii fit are core, more core in fact than most of the core games we used to play, they do not carry the same underpinnings of the games we associated with core after 10 years of habit.

So, both sides, take it easy. non-nintendo fans, understand that the term core is too broad to continue using, and nintendo fans, stop using the definition of core  as a tool for argument.