Qays said:
jarrod said:
Qays said:
jarrod said:
Qays said:
" If 3rd parties had simply treated Wii like they treated PS2, they'd be looking at a Wii software market like PS2's for core games today."
I'm really not sure I buy this. The Wii has primitive graphics, primitive online, and requires you buy an actual controller separately. I'm not sure how much of the core market it could conceivably have captured with those kinds of handicaps.
|
PS2 had primitive graphics, primitive online and (like it or not) the Wii remote plus nunchuk is an "actual controller", and is honestly capable of handling most modern genres fine. All the indications were there early on for a strong core market, especially with games like Red Steel and RE4 far surpassing sales expectations.
Basically, 3rd parties shat the bed with shovelware and spinoffs, and now they're stuck with a super casual mainstream Wii marketplace that they've basically poisoned themselves with, a base that really only trusts Nintendo's brand.
|
You're seriously comparing the graphics differential between the PS2 and original Xbox to that between the Wii and the HD twins? Seriously? Come on. Online wasn't a prerequisite for the core gamer last generation like it is now.
And it doesn't matter if Wiimote nunchuk is "honestly capable of handling most genres fine". Core gamers don't like it. That is what we're talking about, isn't it? The reason why the Wii has failed to win over the core?
|
No, I'm comparing Wii to PS2. Graphics certainly help, but "core gamers" are bit more diversified than the "graphics whores" subset. Otherwise DS wouldn't have destroyed PSP.
And online is still a comparative niche for gaming, even though it's grown tremendously in the past 3 generations. It's going to become even more central next gen, but as of now the installed online base is likely still a small fraction of the overall base for dedicated game machines.
You'll have to qualify "core gamers don't like it". I mean Nintendo's top "core games" still outsell almost everyone else's regardless of platform. The reason Wii never held on to the core market (and there was plenty of adoption early on), is because development for core content never shifted over to it, for various reasons. The controller really has little to do with that too, the problems reach more into industry expectations and resource priorities/allocations from before the Wii was even on shelves. The market shifted faster than the industry at large adapted, and now the industry's playing catch up.
|
Graphics help to sway core gamers, and they help more the bigger the graphics differential is. The difference between PS2 and Xbox wasn't that great, certainly not big enough to matter to most people. The difference between Wii and the HD twins is huge in comparison.
And I'm pretty sure the working definition of "core gamer" to be used in this thread was defined in the very first post.
|
Again, DS versus PSP pretty much blows a hole in your theory that online, graphics and traditional interface are what matter most to core gamers. The simple truth is what actually matters to core gamers is content. Content is why DS succeeded with the core market over PSP, and content is also why Wii has faltered with the core market versus the combined HD platforms, despite both having basically the same exact hardware differentiations to the competition (inferior graphics, inferior online/storage, new interfaces).
We can argue exactly, why that content never came to Wii, but hardware is just a means to an end, and what really sells game systems always has been (and always will be) the games themselves. If Wii had gotten the sort of core game support PS2 had, it'd have grown the same sort of core game marketplace PS2 did. It really is that simple. Really.
