By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - PlayStation "Move"....

joeorc on 11 March 2010
Profcrab said:

I agree that essentially Sony is trying to do with the Wii's control setup what Nintendo cannot do with the Wii and that is bring it to the HD market. All in all, not a bad idea.  How well it will be recieved on the PS3 is a big unknown.  Like Microsoft's Natal, Sony is asking PS3 owners to invest in new hardware for their system which historically does not do that well.  All of these are interesting ideas, just not sure if they'll fly in the market.  It's not the same as the launch of the Wii, since it was it's own whole product that only required the buyer to purchase more of the same controllers.  Both the PS3 and the 360 are well established in another market.  The PS3's version might be more successful overall because developers can easily make Wii and PS3 versions of the same game, at least in the way they control.  In that case, directly ripping off the Wii control scheme might be the path with the greater chance of success.  Natal is way out somewhere else and is bigger gamble, from the way I see it.  I don't think either manufacturer is playing with odds that I would go to Vegas with, though.

I give this thread a 9.6.

the perfect example was grinder:

was a Wii only 3rd party game. now it went multi-platform.

the one thing Nintendo has going for the system and which I might add is Quite fantastic is it's motion control's.

but

on the same token, by what Sony and Microsoft have done is make an Enticing offer to 3rd party Wii only development as there are now 2 more platform's to port exclusive Wii only application's.

before Wii only application's were made with the Wii in mind "which had that only control scheme"

now there are two more option's on the table.

with the list of Support and Microsoft has been able to gather, it look's pretty good. this I think this not only helps Microsoft and Sony but also maybe even more Wii hardcore game's could be made because of it"

there is just too many Wii's in the market place to ignore

there is just too many Playstation 3's in the market place to ignore

there is just too many Xbox360's in the market place to ignore

3rd party's want to make as much money as they can this just allow's for more money to be made all around.

win/win



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Around the Network
Gamer1211 on 11 March 2010

O-D-C said:
The hardcore market is tiny in comparison to the 'casual' market, and with both Nintendo and Microsoft actively targeting these casual gamers more and more it only makes sense for Sony to want a piece of the pie as well.

Although I think their approach is backwards. They already have a console that has a solid casual market (No they do not, I do not understand how you can think that.  Nintendo DOMINATES the causal market - Sony and MSFT have a hold of the hardcore market), mind you not a great penetration rate into that market like Nintendo has. So they decide to release a camera, that tracks balls, on a controller with a lot of buttons and wireless connectivity with 'sub controllers'? Not casual friendly to say the least.

I have seen people give up on playing the Wii, beacause the controller's wouldn't sinc, which in my mind means that simplicity is key without being simplistic, Sony seems to have the function with the 'Move' but not the form. The thing looks like a Dualshock re-designed in wand form, it's dosn't look simple, intuitive or easy to understand, add that it has to interact with a camera and the 'casuals' will be turned off.

Sony should have, dare I say it... copied Nintendo... more, release a easy to use and understand motion controller that people can pretty much 'plug and play'.

But now I'm getting side-tracked.

You said, Sony should focus on the hardcore market more

I answer: how can they?

They already (has you said) have a great 'core' lineup (although I dispute the core-ness of games like Uncharted 2) but that's an argument for another day. So why not take a more casual approach? It makes sense business wise, it makes sense strategy wise, it makes sense positioning wise, it makes sense marketing wise, it makes sense branding wise, in short, it just makes sense.

My underlining point here is that they are going after a market that is already being served.  Why would consumers purchase a PS3 Enabled Move when something exists that better meets their requirements?  From a strategic POV this makes even less sense.  The expenditure to attack this market must be ludicrous when you factor in R&D, marketing etc.  The competition, buyer power and barriers to entry are all insanely high.  All I see is risk in Sony's approach.  

Yes the more 'hardcore' gamers (otherwise known has the ones who spend more time on the internet then gaming - the only ones we hear from) will hate this new direction that Sony and Microsoft are going in, but these companies have a universal goal, to please their investors, and if that means making 'casuals' happy with games like Little Big Planet, Sony 'Move', Natal, Mario Kart Wii, New Super Mario Bros. Wii then that's what they will do.

Now I'm a gamer, a hardcore one at that (meaning I spend more time on VGChartz then with a controller in my hand) and yes I would love to have a new Metroid or Fire Emblem in my hands every year but I understand that business is business and making these kinds of games A: isin't profitable and B: dosn't please the investors so they make Wii Sports and to solve both those issues.

Look at the sales charts (that's what this site is for right?) Look at the games that light it up:

Call Of Duty
Halo
The Legend Of Zelda
Uncharted
Final Fantasy
Resident Evil
God Of War

ect. X infinite

These arn't core games, (although the 'core' gamer certainly believes they are) their bridge games, games that everybody can play, grasp and enjoy for whatever reason. these are the type of games that developers should focus on making, not the 'super hardcore games' that only a few thousand people will enjoy, but games that the majority of people who own your system will play and like and recommend to others.

These are hardcore games...You are crazy to think that these are bridge games that everybody can play.  

Their is beginning to be a feeling that Casual = Kiddy, this could not be further from the truth. Sony clearly wants God Of War to be a success, and they can't have that with just making a 'super hardcore game', no they will advertise, they will push to the 'casual market',but think about it, their going to have to enjoy the game to recommend it to other people right? So Sony puts in a more 'casual friendly' design and simple puzzles and easy modes to ease people into the experience. I'm just using God Of War as an example, but look all around you, the reason games starts with tutorials and explanations is to ease new gamers (see casuals: who don't know every single detail on a game months before release) into the experience, make it fun for THEM so they can propel sales skyward.

God of War was a terrible example simply based on the M rating.  I am sorry but this game is already segmented to cater to the  hardcore gamer.  Not a casual game at all.  

Why do they do this? Beacause they know that you and I, already know how to play and they know we will buy it and so will our freinds, they know this, they want new gamers to buy their products.

Now I'm sorry I went on such a long rant, but reading your OP made me want to get some stuff off my chest here, just some feelings and thoughts I'v been having.

: )

 



    

IronArcher on 11 March 2010

Sony's been working on motion control for quite some time (remember the Eye Toy? and other applicaitons) and I think that the Playstation Move is a culmination of years of work in this area to try and bring something worthwhile to the table rather than a forced gimmick.  I've owned a Wii but could never understand Nintendo's adherence to dated graphics tech.  I can assure you there will likely be games from standout studios like Naughty Dog and Santa Monica Studios that will incorporate the Move and many of the naysayers may have to eat their comments and swallow their pride.



O-D-C on 11 March 2010
Gamer1211 said:

O-D-C said:
The hardcore market is tiny in comparison to the 'casual' market, and with both Nintendo and Microsoft actively targeting these casual gamers more and more it only makes sense for Sony to want a piece of the pie as well.

Although I think their approach is backwards. They already have a console that has a solid casual market (No they do not, I do not understand how you can think that.  Nintendo DOMINATES the causal market - Sony and MSFT have a hold of the hardcore market), mind you not a great penetration rate into that market like Nintendo has. So they decide to release a camera, that tracks balls, on a controller with a lot of buttons and wireless connectivity with 'sub controllers'? Not casual friendly to say the least.

O-D-C: You don't sell 30+ million consoles and millions of copies of Little Big Planet to just hardcore gamers.

I have seen people give up on playing the Wii, beacause the controller's wouldn't sinc, which in my mind means that simplicity is key without being simplistic, Sony seems to have the function with the 'Move' but not the form. The thing looks like a Dualshock re-designed in wand form, it's dosn't look simple, intuitive or easy to understand, add that it has to interact with a camera and the 'casuals' will be turned off.

Sony should have, dare I say it... copied Nintendo... more, release a easy to use and understand motion controller that people can pretty much 'plug and play'.

But now I'm getting side-tracked.

You said, Sony should focus on the hardcore market more

I answer: how can they?

They already (has you said) have a great 'core' lineup (although I dispute the core-ness of games like Uncharted 2) but that's an argument for another day. So why not take a more casual approach? It makes sense business wise, it makes sense strategy wise, it makes sense positioning wise, it makes sense marketing wise, it makes sense branding wise, in short, it just makes sense.

My underlining point here is that they are going after a market that is already being served.  Why would consumers purchase a PS3 Enabled Move when something exists that better meets their requirements?  From a strategic POV this makes even less sense.  The expenditure to attack this market must be ludicrous when you factor in R&D, marketing etc.  The competition, buyer power and barriers to entry are all insanely high.  All I see is risk in Sony's approach.

O-D-C: Someone at Sony analyzed the situation, and decided that that risk was outweighed by the possibility of success. Yes they are investing millions into R&D but Nintendo has not reached the limits of the 'blue' ocean, Sony and Mircrosoft just want their piece of the pie.

Yes the more 'hardcore' gamers (otherwise known has the ones who spend more time on the internet then gaming - the only ones we hear from) will hate this new direction that Sony and Microsoft are going in, but these companies have a universal goal, to please their investors, and if that means making 'casuals' happy with games like Little Big Planet, Sony 'Move', Natal, Mario Kart Wii, New Super Mario Bros. Wii then that's what they will do.

Now I'm a gamer, a hardcore one at that (meaning I spend more time on VGChartz then with a controller in my hand) and yes I would love to have a new Metroid or Fire Emblem in my hands every year but I understand that business is business and making these kinds of games A: isin't profitable and B: dosn't please the investors so they make Wii Sports and to solve both those issues.

Look at the sales charts (that's what this site is for right?) Look at the games that light it up:

Call Of Duty
Halo
The Legend Of Zelda
Uncharted
Final Fantasy
Resident Evil
God Of War

ect. X infinite

These arn't core games, (although the 'core' gamer certainly believes they are) their bridge games, games that everybody can play, grasp and enjoy for whatever reason. these are the type of games that developers should focus on making, not the 'super hardcore games' that only a few thousand people will enjoy, but games that the majority of people who own your system will play and like and recommend to others.

These are hardcore games...You are crazy to think that these are bridge games that everybody can play. 

O-D-C: You're crazy to think that 12 million 'hardcore' gamers bought MW2.

Their is beginning to be a feeling that Casual = Kiddy, this could not be further from the truth. Sony clearly wants God Of War to be a success, and they can't have that with just making a 'super hardcore game', no they will advertise, they will push to the 'casual market',but think about it, their going to have to enjoy the game to recommend it to other people right? So Sony puts in a more 'casual friendly' design and simple puzzles and easy modes to ease people into the experience. I'm just using God Of War as an example, but look all around you, the reason games starts with tutorials and explanations is to ease new gamers (see casuals: who don't know every single detail on a game months before release) into the experience, make it fun for THEM so they can propel sales skyward.

God of War was a terrible example simply based on the M rating.  I am sorry but this game is already segmented to cater to the  hardcore gamer.  Not a casual game at all. 

O-D-C: M=hardcore now? Grand Theft Auto says hi, one of the most casual freindly games of all time. You can litteraly pick up the controller and do what you want. Just like God Of War, GTA has some features that the 'hardcore' minority will enjoy, but the game is designed for everyone to enjoy. It would be ludicrous for Sony or any developper with pour millions into a project designed only for the hardcore.

Why do they do this? Beacause they know that you and I, already know how to play and they know we will buy it and so will our freinds, they know this, they want new gamers to buy their products.


Now I'm sorry I went on such a long rant, but reading your OP made me want to get some stuff off my chest here, just some feelings and thoughts I'v been having.

: )




Reasonable on 11 March 2010

Depends how you look at it.

One school of thought for business is offer more of what people have been proven to like and are familiar with.

Sony are clearly taking the view that Nintendo have established the 'baseline' experience that people want and are going to offer something similar. This certain makes sense from certain business standards and isn't that odd. The risk is that, yes, they are late to the party, Nintendo are way ahead in the lead, and they just take a small amount of the pie.

Another says offer something different or a twist on the baseline - this is what MS are hoping to do. I'd say MS approach offers better chance for big success, but also has a bigger chance for failure as well, which is consistent with this approach.

If Sony are right, and most people now are expecting something similar to the Wii then Natal could fail badly for being too dfferent and too much of a jump and failing to 'bottle lighting' in the way Nintendo did with the Wii and if Sony are also right about people being up for more of the same but in HD or with their angle, then they'll sell okay.

If Sony are right and the above happens but the market size isn't as big as they hope, or isn't ready to consider seeking more of the same but with a jump to HD, then both Move and Natal would fail.

If MS are right then Move will probably fail for being late and simply 'more of the same' while Natal will see goof success and might even restablish the baseline away from the Wii motion controls.

So, for sure, MS are taking the riskier route but they might gain more, and for sure Sony are taking the low risk road but their success if it happens is likely to be more muted. Probably. Because you can never quite tell in advance.

Anyway, I think it's clear why Sony's approach is as valid as MS - it's about risk/reward and current position. MS is going to take a risk and try and really spread its wings, Sony I think wants to be more conservative and go for steady growth no doubt with an eye to regaining ground later vs MS feeling they need to be bold to get anywhere.




Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network
dirkd2323 on 11 March 2010

You just never know what may happen, keep that in mind



Gamer1211 on 11 March 2010
O-D-C said:
Gamer1211 said:

O-D-C said:
The hardcore market is tiny in comparison to the 'casual' market, and with both Nintendo and Microsoft actively targeting these casual gamers more and more it only makes sense for Sony to want a piece of the pie as well.

Although I think their approach is backwards. They already have a console that has a solid casual market (No they do not, I do not understand how you can think that.  Nintendo DOMINATES the causal market - Sony and MSFT have a hold of the hardcore market), mind you not a great penetration rate into that market like Nintendo has. So they decide to release a camera, that tracks balls, on a controller with a lot of buttons and wireless connectivity with 'sub controllers'? Not casual friendly to say the least.

O-D-C: You don't sell 30+ million consoles and millions of copies of Little Big Planet to just hardcore gamers.

 

Question, how many Wii owners also own a 360 and PS3?  Probably not that many.  The argument you are making suggests that the the majority of PS3/360 owners are casual gamers, this is false.  Your example of LBP and its 3ish Million units sold proves my point.  A very small portion of the PS3 community owns that game.  It is clear that the Wii dominates the casual market as both their install base and core gaming genres suggest.  Look at the sales of Wii Sports Resort as an example.   

I have seen people give up on playing the Wii, beacause the controller's wouldn't sinc, which in my mind means that simplicity is key without being simplistic, Sony seems to have the function with the 'Move' but not the form. The thing looks like a Dualshock re-designed in wand form, it's dosn't look simple, intuitive or easy to understand, add that it has to interact with a camera and the 'casuals' will be turned off.

Sony should have, dare I say it... copied Nintendo... more, release a easy to use and understand motion controller that people can pretty much 'plug and play'.

But now I'm getting side-tracked.

You said, Sony should focus on the hardcore market more

I answer: how can they?

They already (has you said) have a great 'core' lineup (although I dispute the core-ness of games like Uncharted 2) but that's an argument for another day. So why not take a more casual approach? It makes sense business wise, it makes sense strategy wise, it makes sense positioning wise, it makes sense marketing wise, it makes sense branding wise, in short, it just makes sense.

My underlining point here is that they are going after a market that is already being served.  Why would consumers purchase a PS3 Enabled Move when something exists that better meets their requirements?  From a strategic POV this makes even less sense.  The expenditure to attack this market must be ludicrous when you factor in R&D, marketing etc.  The competition, buyer power and barriers to entry are all insanely high.  All I see is risk in Sony's approach.

O-D-C: Someone at Sony analyzed the situation, and decided that that risk was outweighed by the possibility of success. Yes they are investing millions into R&D but Nintendo has not reached the limits of the 'blue' ocean, Sony and Mircrosoft just want their piece of the pie.

 

I agree with you that Sony and MSFT want there piece.  However, the reality is that Sony is attempting to enter a new marketing in the gaming industry.  This market is utterly dominated by Nintendo in a variety of forms.  The is a great deal of inherit risk here which leads me to believe that they are more interested in obtaining increased 3rd party software support.  The reality is that the required investment to enter this market is huge and I think Sony is taking a step in the wrong direction which they have done on numerous occasions this generation (i.e. Home).  

Yes the more 'hardcore' gamers (otherwise known has the ones who spend more time on the internet then gaming - the only ones we hear from) will hate this new direction that Sony and Microsoft are going in, but these companies have a universal goal, to please their investors, and if that means making 'casuals' happy with games like Little Big Planet, Sony 'Move', Natal, Mario Kart Wii, New Super Mario Bros. Wii then that's what they will do.

Now I'm a gamer, a hardcore one at that (meaning I spend more time on VGChartz then with a controller in my hand) and yes I would love to have a new Metroid or Fire Emblem in my hands every year but I understand that business is business and making these kinds of games A: isin't profitable and B: dosn't please the investors so they make Wii Sports and to solve both those issues.

Look at the sales charts (that's what this site is for right?) Look at the games that light it up:

Call Of Duty
Halo
The Legend Of Zelda
Uncharted
Final Fantasy
Resident Evil
God Of War

ect. X infinite

These arn't core games, (although the 'core' gamer certainly believes they are) their bridge games, games that everybody can play, grasp and enjoy for whatever reason. these are the type of games that developers should focus on making, not the 'super hardcore games' that only a few thousand people will enjoy, but games that the majority of people who own your system will play and like and recommend to others.

These are hardcore games...You are crazy to think that these are bridge games that everybody can play. 

O-D-C: You're crazy to think that 12 million 'hardcore' gamers bought MW2.

 

How could you possibly think that a game which is catered to the 19-30 year old male is not hardcore.  How many women and kids play this game?  Think about the sheer inclination to play this game online, do casual gamers play games online?  Look at the Wii as an example, do they have an online infastructure that equals Microsoft or Sony?  The hardcore market is huge especially considering that generation X and Y have grown up with video game consoles.  These are the individuals that make up the bulk of MW2's sales, not the casual market.    

Their is beginning to be a feeling that Casual = Kiddy, this could not be further from the truth. Sony clearly wants God Of War to be a success, and they can't have that with just making a 'super hardcore game', no they will advertise, they will push to the 'casual market',but think about it, their going to have to enjoy the game to recommend it to other people right? So Sony puts in a more 'casual friendly' design and simple puzzles and easy modes to ease people into the experience. I'm just using God Of War as an example, but look all around you, the reason games starts with tutorials and explanations is to ease new gamers (see casuals: who don't know every single detail on a game months before release) into the experience, make it fun for THEM so they can propel sales skyward.

God of War was a terrible example simply based on the M rating.  I am sorry but this game is already segmented to cater to the  hardcore gamer.  Not a casual game at all. 

O-D-C: M=hardcore now? Grand Theft Auto says hi, one of the most casual freindly games of all time. You can litteraly pick up the controller and do what you want. Just like God Of War, GTA has some features that the 'hardcore' minority will enjoy, but the game is designed for everyone to enjoy. It would be ludicrous for Sony or any developper with pour millions into a project designed only for the hardcore.

 

How is GTA an example of a casual game?  The whole franchise has been produced for hardcore gamers.  Gameplay aside, the story and draw to GTA is from the hardcore gaming population that has grown up with the franchise, not casual gamers who have heard of it once or twice.  No M does not equal hardcore but what it means is that a game is segmenting itself from reaching the mass market.  An E rated game is a better example of a casual game.  Think Mario, LBP etc, these games have mass appeal and therefore cater to the casual gamer, not a game that in itself is producers for a subset of the gaming population.  

Why do they do this? Beacause they know that you and I, already know how to play and they know we will buy it and so will our freinds, they know this, they want new gamers to buy their products.


Now I'm sorry I went on such a long rant, but reading your OP made me want to get some stuff off my chest here, just some feelings and thoughts I'v been having.

: )


 



    

O-D-C on 11 March 2010
Gamer1211 said:
O-D-C said:
Gamer1211 said:

O-D-C said:
The hardcore market is tiny in comparison to the 'casual' market, and with both Nintendo and Microsoft actively targeting these casual gamers more and more it only makes sense for Sony to want a piece of the pie as well.

Although I think their approach is backwards. They already have a console that has a solid casual market (No they do not, I do not understand how you can think that.  Nintendo DOMINATES the causal market - Sony and MSFT have a hold of the hardcore market), mind you not a great penetration rate into that market like Nintendo has. So they decide to release a camera, that tracks balls, on a controller with a lot of buttons and wireless connectivity with 'sub controllers'? Not casual friendly to say the least.

O-D-C: You don't sell 30+ million consoles and millions of copies of Little Big Planet to just hardcore gamers.

Question, how many Wii owners also own a 360 and PS3?  Probably not that many.  The argument you are making suggests that the the majority of PS3/360 owners are casual gamers, this is false.  Your example of LBP and its 3ish Million units sold proves my point.  A very small portion of the PS3 community owns that game.  It is clear that the Wii dominates the casual market as both their install base and core gaming genres suggest.  Look at the sales of Wii Sports Resort as an example.   

But your saying the majority of PS3 owner are 'hardcore' gamers, which is false. Their aren't even 30 million hardcore gamers to go around all 3 consoles, let alone 1, these gamers have to come from somehwere, and the large untapped market is 'the casuals'.

I have seen people give up on playing the Wii, beacause the controller's wouldn't sinc, which in my mind means that simplicity is key without being simplistic, Sony seems to have the function with the 'Move' but not the form. The thing looks like a Dualshock re-designed in wand form, it's dosn't look simple, intuitive or easy to understand, add that it has to interact with a camera and the 'casuals' will be turned off.

Sony should have, dare I say it... copied Nintendo... more, release a easy to use and understand motion controller that people can pretty much 'plug and play'.

But now I'm getting side-tracked.

You said, Sony should focus on the hardcore market more

I answer: how can they?

They already (has you said) have a great 'core' lineup (although I dispute the core-ness of games like Uncharted 2) but that's an argument for another day. So why not take a more casual approach? It makes sense business wise, it makes sense strategy wise, it makes sense positioning wise, it makes sense marketing wise, it makes sense branding wise, in short, it just makes sense.

My underlining point here is that they are going after a market that is already being served.  Why would consumers purchase a PS3 Enabled Move when something exists that better meets their requirements?  From a strategic POV this makes even less sense.  The expenditure to attack this market must be ludicrous when you factor in R&D, marketing etc.  The competition, buyer power and barriers to entry are all insanely high.  All I see is risk in Sony's approach.

O-D-C: Someone at Sony analyzed the situation, and decided that that risk was outweighed by the possibility of success. Yes they are investing millions into R&D but Nintendo has not reached the limits of the 'blue' ocean, Sony and Mircrosoft just want their piece of the pie.

I agree with you that Sony and MSFT want there piece.  However, the reality is that Sony is attempting to enter a new marketing in the gaming industry.  This market is utterly dominated by Nintendo in a variety of forms.  The is a great deal of inherit risk here which leads me to believe that they are more interested in obtaining increased 3rd party software support.  The reality is that the required investment to enter this market is huge and I think Sony is taking a step in the wrong direction which they have done on numerous occasions this generation (i.e. Home). 

The 'casual' market is Nintendo dominated, but not loyal, they go with experiences. If Sony can offer a better experience or Natal they will go there. Their is no 'brand loyalty' among Nintendo's new market.

Yes the more 'hardcore' gamers (otherwise known has the ones who spend more time on the internet then gaming - the only ones we hear from) will hate this new direction that Sony and Microsoft are going in, but these companies have a universal goal, to please their investors, and if that means making 'casuals' happy with games like Little Big Planet, Sony 'Move', Natal, Mario Kart Wii, New Super Mario Bros. Wii then that's what they will do.

Now I'm a gamer, a hardcore one at that (meaning I spend more time on VGChartz then with a controller in my hand) and yes I would love to have a new Metroid or Fire Emblem in my hands every year but I understand that business is business and making these kinds of games A: isin't profitable and B: dosn't please the investors so they make Wii Sports and to solve both those issues.

Look at the sales charts (that's what this site is for right?) Look at the games that light it up:

Call Of Duty
Halo
The Legend Of Zelda
Uncharted
Final Fantasy
Resident Evil
God Of War

ect. X infinite

These arn't core games, (although the 'core' gamer certainly believes they are) their bridge games, games that everybody can play, grasp and enjoy for whatever reason. these are the type of games that developers should focus on making, not the 'super hardcore games' that only a few thousand people will enjoy, but games that the majority of people who own your system will play and like and recommend to others.

These are hardcore games...You are crazy to think that these are bridge games that everybody can play. 

O-D-C: You're crazy to think that 12 million 'hardcore' gamers bought MW2.

How could you possibly think that a game which is catered to the 19-30 year old male is not hardcore.  How many women and kids play this game?  Think about the sheer inclination to play this game online, do casual gamers play games online?  Look at the Wii as an example, do they have an online infastructure that equals Microsoft or Sony?  The hardcore market is huge especially considering that generation X and Y have grown up with video game consoles.  These are the individuals that make up the bulk of MW2's sales, not the casual market.  

The bulk of MW2's sales are hype and advertisment generated. I think where we disagree the most here is what a 'casual' gamer is. A casual gamer can be a 21 year old who plays MW2 online intermintently. He hasn't mastered the game, but plays with his freinds, in his clan. He might own a few more games, but for the most part when a new 'hyped' (lets say FFXIII) game comes out, he will get excited and go get it.

 

A hardcore gamer is one who dosn't need the hype, he is a gamer (he could be 12 years old for all I care) who knows everything about a game months before it releases, he knows every detail of FFXIII before anyone else. He dosn't need advertising or hype to tell him to get the game, he just needs to know the fact that's it's coming. He will defend his games and consoles to the death and hate anything that dosn't interest him (Wii series).

 

That's my definition.

Their is beginning to be a feeling that Casual = Kiddy, this could not be further from the truth. Sony clearly wants God Of War to be a success, and they can't have that with just making a 'super hardcore game', no they will advertise, they will push to the 'casual market',but think about it, their going to have to enjoy the game to recommend it to other people right? So Sony puts in a more 'casual friendly' design and simple puzzles and easy modes to ease people into the experience. I'm just using God Of War as an example, but look all around you, the reason games starts with tutorials and explanations is to ease new gamers (see casuals: who don't know every single detail on a game months before release) into the experience, make it fun for THEM so they can propel sales skyward.

God of War was a terrible example simply based on the M rating.  I am sorry but this game is already segmented to cater to the  hardcore gamer.  Not a casual game at all. 

O-D-C: M=hardcore now? Grand Theft Auto says hi, one of the most casual freindly games of all time. You can litteraly pick up the controller and do what you want. Just like God Of War, GTA has some features that the 'hardcore' minority will enjoy, but the game is designed for everyone to enjoy. It would be ludicrous for Sony or any developper with pour millions into a project designed only for the hardcore.

How is GTA an example of a casual game?  The whole franchise has been produced for hardcore gamers.  Gameplay aside, the story and draw to GTA is from the hardcore gaming population that has grown up with the franchise, not casual gamers who have heard of it once or twice.  No M does not equal hardcore but what it means is that a game is segmenting itself from reaching the mass market.  An E rated game is a better example of a casual game.  Think Mario, LBP etc, these games have mass appeal and therefore cater to the casual gamer, not a game that in itself is producers for a subset of the gaming population.  

E rated games can be VERY HARDCORE (Fire Emblem) and M rated games (Grand Theft Auto) can be CASUAL, it's a question of gameplay not content.

Why do they do this? Beacause they know that you and I, already know how to play and they know we will buy it and so will our freinds, they know this, they want new gamers to buy their products.


Now I'm sorry I went on such a long rant, but reading your OP made me want to get some stuff off my chest here, just some feelings and thoughts I'v been having.

: )


 

 



archbrix on 11 March 2010
joeorc said:

I think it's less about the casual market as more about the "Wii cannot sell hardcore software" which we know is false, but by offering something like the Wii developer's could indeed what would have been exclusive Wii only HARDCORE game's from 3rd party , now there would be 2 Platform's with pretty much the same control scheme

porting 3rd party app's which compete with 1st party Nintendo App's have a tendency to favor Nintendo not 3rd party's . this way they can get more sales for the 3rd party.

this I think is more about getting more 3rd party developer's to put their Wii only application's now on the PS3 also.

 

 

Agreed, and because of this I think the Move is a great, well, move.

 

It's just laughable to see how blatantly they ripped-off Wii Play with their generic demos that will likely come packaged with the thing:  Wii Play2, now in HD!

 

 



joeorc on 11 March 2010
archbrix said:
joeorc said:

I think it's less about the casual market as more about the "Wii cannot sell hardcore software" which we know is false, but by offering something like the Wii developer's could indeed what would have been exclusive Wii only HARDCORE game's from 3rd party , now there would be 2 Platform's with pretty much the same control scheme

porting 3rd party app's which compete with 1st party Nintendo App's have a tendency to favor Nintendo not 3rd party's . this way they can get more sales for the 3rd party.

this I think is more about getting more 3rd party developer's to put their Wii only application's now on the PS3 also.

 

 

Agreed, and because of this I think the Move is a great, well, move.

 

It's just laughable to see how blatantly they ripped-off Wii Play with their generic demos that will likely come packaged with the thing:  Wii Play2, now in HD!

 

 

from an R&D perspective both Nintendo and Sony have been working on Motion control's Nintendo just got their's out first.

besides when your still in pre alpha for software there is still a way's to go in fine tuning.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.