Soundwave said:
I think people need to stop comparing it to the Wii period, Switch is not a casual-centric gaming device.
Sure it has some nods to that audience, but that's about it, it's a gaming hybrid device for people who need to have core games with them even when they go outside the house, which to me is a hardcore proposition in its own right. That's the "wow" of the Swtich, not that it can run some small simple game, the 3DS can do that too, it's that it can play a big giant adventure game like Zelda or Skyrim anywhere. As such it has appeal even to PS4/XBox gamers.
That's going to be the main appeal, it's what's driving adoption right now in Zelda.
If things like 1,2 Switch and Just Dance end up driving Switch adoption and selling tens of millions of copies, ok, then you can say otherwise, but right now, nope.
Even the marketing is basically majority focused on adult males, who are definitely not the novice gamer type.
The challenge for Nintendo now is to keep games like Zelda coming, games that really excite/interest enthusiast gamers. Switch will have to succeed on its own merits, it unlikely to have that Wii/DS casual appeal, but on the other hand it's wide functionality as a gaming device can bring more core gamers back towards buying one (perhaps in addition to a PS4) than other "failed" Nintendo platforms like GameCube did. So it has that going for it.
|
The whole notion of "casual" and "hardcore" gamers just needs to be thrown out of the window. It doesn't serve any purpose and it is a term that was used by marketing departments and "analysts" during the 7th generation.
The Switch has mass market appeal, that about sums it up. People who play lots of games and people who only play games a few hours per week are interested in it.
The Wii wasn't aimed at "casuals", it was a disruptive product. The disruptive technology used was motion controls. The Switch, provided it gets the right software, will grab a lot of the Wii market, because it is also based on motion controls (Mario Kart, ARMS, Splatoon all use them). The reasons the Wii U failed was because Nintendo didn't follow the script: To improve upon a disruptive product, you have to enhance the disruptive characteristics. Christensen calls this "moving upmarket". In the case of the Wii U that should have been improved motion controls. Instead we got the gamepad and customers (predictably, because that's what the research said) were not interested in that.
The Switch does offer improved motion controls and more complex software, which is exactly what the textbook demands. For example, a Switch Sports that focused on competitive play (online and offline) based on accurate motion controls would be a textbook example of "moving upmarket". ARMS could very well be another example, but it's too early to tell. Splatoon for Wii U was one of the few last gen games that fit the description and it sold extremely well.
The research, based on a sample size of 300,000 companies across dozens of industries predicts this: If Nintendo moves upmarket (Switch Sports, ARMS, Splatoon, Mario Kart, etc. with accurate motion controls, more complex motion-based games and a stronger emphasis on competition, along with more games focusing on playing together while providing an actual challenge) the Switch will succeed. If Nintendo concentrates on "core gamers" (3D Mario, Xenoblade, stuff like Bayonetta) the Switch will quickly lose its appeal and become a niche product. And as for your Zelda argument: The reason Zelda sells consoles is exactly *because* it broadened the franchise's appeal beyond the traditional Nintendo customer. More people than before are interested in it because it is an open world game. It has mass market appeal! Just like GTA, which definitely didn't sell its one gazillion units to hardcore gamers.
Currently Online 
