Would a modern day Gamecube succeed?

[bdbdbd]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Um...what? When I was very young Duke Nukem, Splatter House, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Conker, Doom were all beyond my reach and in those days those were classic games. Once Nintendo Sony lost their third party strangle hold and Sony got it their mature titles were bare bones. I managed to get around my parents to play certain games, but in my house they were off limits. In the 80's and 90's videogames were percieved to be for kids because Sega and Nintendo marketed them to be for children. Adults played by association and with Nintendo and Sega it is still the case. Sony came in and said adults can game too making and acquiring games adults can play as well as children. In the 90's the average age of the gamer had to be from child to teen, today its adults. Segas major association was with arcade gamers with its first party and with Nintendo it was home exclusivity save for games like Street Fighter and Killer Instinct.

Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper and Ratchet and Clank are Pixar movies in games, Sony has had that covered since th early 2000's and anyone who has played them knows it. Nintendo has games that would be better associated with Disney characters.

Dramas require the best acting, yes, but Action movies make great amounts of money, especially in the 80's and 90's where building memorable characters was what mattered. Mature movies can span all these genres, they just have the age requirement which is 17+ when you pay for admission in America. The movie depends on the actors, script and director and mature films can be great. This is as far as I will speak about action movies. 300? Natural Born killers? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Hannibal? Saving Private Ryan? The Godfather? Scarface? Kill Bill? Mature does not mean bad acting, if anything you need to be good to be convincing you need to be a very good actor to pull off action/killing/dramatic scenes if they are all included in one movie.

Well, you're younger than me and HappySqurriel. The game rating system got started after Mortal Kombat - prior to that, you could have a game like Custer's Revenge and it didn't have any age rating.

You're completely wrong about marketing; in the 70's and 80's games were marketed towards families, it was in the 90's that games started targeting the kids; first Sega with the "coolness" of Megadrive, and later Sony with the "only for teenagers" -themed Playstation. It was one of the big reasons why Nintendo lost so many customers during the decades; Nintendo abandoned the families to compete in the teenager-market without the "coolness" others were marketing themselves with. Now that Nintendo went back to families with Wii and DS, they shot through the roof.

While the average age of gamers today is higher than it was in the 90's, it's not because of core games, but everything else. You did mention that surveys tells us the average age of gamer is beyond 30, but what you didn't mention, is that the same surveys tell us, that "the primary driver for growth have been Wii and DS, among mobile devices".

When we compare 80's and 90's, the average age of gamers was much higher in the 80's, as videogames reached families, whereas in the 90's it was mainly kids.

Let's say Sony's target in the 90's was teenagers, then why in the hell they'd abandon their established market? And why wouldn't third parties try to this market? After all, it's a company who's consumer electronics have always relied heavily on teenagers, and teenagers have been the key market in every disruption made by Sony, this is what MS knows aswell, and Sony's intention was to use the Playstation (brand) to disrupt Microsoft.