Play4Fun said:
At a time when the cost and time of developing games are high, the industry should ignore a a segment of the market because you think they should be catering only to your demographic and not the 'evil' casuals that are bringing so much money to industry. Money, I should add that goes toward development of those precious 'non-casual' games you think is the only software the industry should be making. It's mindblowing to me that you think Nintendo trying to cater to all demographics instead of just one is 'bad market practise'. Ignoring a segment of the market isn't good business practise.
|
I would also add --- and I apologize for inserting myself into your conversation --- that so-called casuals are the ones that buy the vast majority of systems. As much as I would love all video game players to be super dedicated and well-informed, the majority of people who buy a Wii (or a PS3 or Xbox 360) are "casual" video game players. Many of them buy the most popular or sexiest console, many of them buy what their friends own, many of them receive an unsolicited gift from a friend or family member. So Nintendo going after the casual video game player IS a smart business move. It's really the only business move. Yes retention is low. That's because the average consumer is pretty damn fickle.
Neither Nintendo nor Microsoft nor Sony have to worry about their loyal fans. IGN ran a survey in May, and of the things it measured was brand loyalty. Remarkably, 67% of users who owned and played a PS3 all the time were interested in purchasing a PS4; the same was true for those who owned and played Xbox 360 (67%) and Wii (68%). In other words, two-thirds of gamers who play a current-generation system "very often" are interested in its successor, regardless of the brand. So the big three shouldn't be concerned with their most loyal and active customers. But they DO have to worry about "casual" video game players.
