Borkachev on 27 February 2008
If you inherently believe that including others is a good thing, which I do, then I absolutely believe that a simpler interface is necessary, yes.
"Including others" is an awfully rose-scented way of putting it. What you're doing is including some at the expense of excluding others. By limiting your control options you limit the kinds of games playable on the system, and with them your audience -- I'll call them "traditional," or "experienced" gamers, since I don't like the term "hardcore" in this context.
Complex control schemes do the same thing with the audiences reversed, of course. Here it's the casuals who are excluded. But I'm not one arguing for a homogenization of the industry where every gaming system uses this type of controller. I think diversity is what we should be after, where at least one console manufacturer pursues each direction, or else they come up with interfaces that somehow appeal to both sides. (The detachable halves of the Wiimote/nunchuck could give an early idea of how this might work. Sony/MS could develop fully functional controllers that can have their more intimidating components removed for simpler games).
Casual gamers are certainly the largest audience, at least in terms of sheer numbers. But as you imply, there's still money to be made from the core of traditional gamers -- probably enough to turn a tidy profit for both MS and Sony, this generation -- and that probably isn't going to change anytime soon. Another thing to consider is that while there may be a lot of casual gamers out there, most of them aren't going to buy more than one or two games a year. Almost none of them will buy more than one console. The casual pot may not be as big as some of the more optimistic onlookers think it is.
I don't think it's in anybody's interests for Sony or Microsoft to barrel headfirst into the casual market while forgetting the consumers they built their brand on.
