http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/microsoft-attacks-the-hardcore-says-they-dont-understand-video-games/

Good stuff. I am amazed and have read the rebuttal of Malstrom's point of view, which is a criticism of two articles that Malstrom put out in 2005:

http://screwattack.com/blogs/The-Sickeningly-Magnificent-Blog-of-Griffin-the-Critical-Hypocrite/Some-more-of-Griffins-whining-About-A-Sean-Malstrom-2

Personally, I don't agree with Malstrom on everything. I think his ego is of such size that he comes across as obnoxious. That being said, the point of view he has been promoting since 2006 has been proven successful with the Wii selling twice as many units as the PS3, Wii games selling better on a single platform than multi-platform blockbusters, and the repeated failures of esteemed industry analysts Michael Pachter and Anita Frazier being wrong time and time again about their predictions of certain games and the PS3 and 360 winning this generation.

What I like most about Malstrom's work is his careful dissection of the fallacy of the "hardcore gamer vs. casual gamer" nonsense:

http://malstrom.50webs.com/washinghardcore2.htm

Look, listen and learn. Good reading from a video gaming realist who pulls no punches in calling others and entire companies out on the carpet for the marketing bunk they create.

Knowing his attitude that was pretty expected reaction on what's been said by that PR guy from MS.

BTW there's "Malstrom thread" on VGC, you should have posted there instead.

Microsoft attacks you, saying you don't understand video games. Unfortunately they are right.

That's a funny article. 

But I don't think his definition of hardcore is accurate.  The "hardcore" gamers he mentioned are more wannabes, and elitist snobs than anything.

To me, being a hardcore gamer has nothing to do with the sophistication of the game.  In fact, you can be a hardcore gamer of just about any game.

A hardcore gamer to me is someone who becomes incredibly skilled at a game through dedication.

I'm as much a casual gamer in some game genres as I am a hardcore one in others.

When I play just to have a good time, and nothing else, i'm a casual.  When I dedicate hours and hours on a game to become a really competitive player or to achieve near impossible tasks (speed run, one life play through, completing Gradius V on Very Hard without using continues, etc...), then I'm becoming a hardcore gamer for that game.

I think it just comes down to the dedication and the skill level that result from this same dedication. This is similar to comparing professional and amateur Chess players.  The level of dedication and resulting skill between those 2 groups are what define them.

That's my view on this.

Hardcore gamers...

1) Don't call themselves hardcore gamers. If you post on a thread "I'm a hardcore gamer and... blahblahblah", you're not one

2) Are too busy gaming to post on threads!

Ironic, isn't it?

You got it down pat.

That thread has run it's course and has gone off on too many tangents for those who do not know about Sean Malstrom to jump into without wading through multi paragraph debates between posters.

I just read it. Noone could possibly retort what he said because he didn't actually say anything. It sort of started off on the right direction and then we're left with a bunch of bla bla bla and assertions.

Does Microsoft actually know whats going on? Do they actually have the ability to connect with a wider audience? In my opinion he failed to prove whether they did or didn't. Now I understand that Microsoft are pretty retarded on a systematic level within their organisation but he still didn't present a strong case. In this case Malstrom failed to shoot the fish in the barrel, slow clap for Malstrom.

That is my assessment of what he wrote.

The reality of the situation is that Microsoft with Kinect and various other things will have a certain level of success. There will be damage control so if they succeed, well they just spent their way into the market, more money than brains etc. If they failed well I told you so/I didn't think it was going to work anyway bla bla bla. The reactions are concordant with what happens, theres no honesty in damage control or success.

 One of many good lessons which this generation should have taught people is this: Just because you're successful, doesn't mean that the reasons given for your success are the right ones. So just because you follow the proven successful methods doesn't mean you're onto a potential winner if the methods chosen weren't actually directly involved in the success of the thing you're copying.

Can Kinect succeed? Yes.

Will Kinect succeed? Not sure.

Do I care? Well yeah cos I'll look kinda stupid if it fails.

Nah, we're all hardcore gamers because we post on video game forums and complain about games! You don't even have to say it, so 1) is invalid.

@Hynad: Did you finish your Gradius V very hard challenge?

He got off the point pursuing his favourite subject of 'old school' and how it faded away, it happens =) But I can tell you in few words what he could have said if he didn't get off the point - Kinect is a marketing without a substance, and how MS is out of control of the "fire" that burns them (the latter, I believe, is reference to the metaphor used in disruption literature).

BTW if my memory serves me right he did give MS a credit for better understanding of the situation, I know this because few months ago I had an discussion with him on that matter. I haven't read his blog at the time so I didn't know his stance on Natal from the beginning (which's merely the same I've presented above). Thesis I was defending, or rather my understanding of what Natal should have been, was pretty close to your position. He didn't change my mind then, but looking at how things are rolling out, I'm agreeing with him more and more .

Well, it depends on definition of "fail", but regardless you should prepare yourself for the worst =)