| Lastgengamer said:
This inquiry is from a financial standpoint regarding Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony and seeing as the casual market is larger overall, I'd have to say it's more important; however the core market as a whole usually remains loyal to each respective console manufacturer and can make a difference overtime. So seeing as they both have their own set of advantages what's your take? |
It has to depend on the business strategy of the console maker. The average casual gamer buys far fewer games than a "core" gamer. Nintendo's business model works targetting casual gamers, because they profit off of the hardware. Even if a number of Wii's sell with only a half dozen units of software over the lifetime, Nintendo makes a hefty profit. On the other end of the spectrum, you have Sony's business model, where even once the PS3's 10 year life-cyle is complete, and it's selling profitably at $150 or less, it's hardware will have sold, overall, at a huge loss. Thus it's primary concern must be core gamers, who buy 10,15, 20 games return that investment. And of course a focus must be chosen - casual gamers wouldn't spend as much on the system as core gamers, whereas core gamers are more likely to be swayed by specs/graphics.
Thus neither is "more important" but rather "more important to ME." So in short, casuals are more important to Nintendo, Core for MS and Sony.
