Now you're just ignoring what I said by lumping all Nintendo games together and that's not cool... Well, you are wrong anyways, I will show you.

Nintendo first party game: Metroid Other M. Total Sales: 1.03M. Look a lot like a Sony 1st party game, dun't it?

Sony first party game: Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception. Total Sales: 3.43M.

No, you are not correct.

I think you're sort of making his point.

So.....comparing last gen to this gen:

Last Gen: Xbox ~ 24 million sales.

This Gen: Xbox ~ 60 million sales.

So, roughly about 3x the amount of potential customers buying a game.

Now, a game like Halo 3 comes out (granted there were probably only about 30 million or less 360s when it came out) and it has 11 million sales vs. 8.5 million for Halo 2. So Halo 3 sold more than Halo 2.  That could mean that the series increased in popularity or some other factors, but, for the most part, one could argue that the "core" audience on the 360 vs. the xbox is about the same or has increased.

Now take the Wii and SSBB

Wii = 94 million  vs GameCube 22 million (life time)

SSBM = 8 million SSBB = 11 million.

So, an increase in 70 million(!!!!!!!) potential customers nets only 3 million more sales.  An increase in 30 million or so 360 users got Halo 3 the same increase. Adding in the fact that the 360 also had another Halo game and countless CoD games when a large number of the 60 million purchased their device while SSBB has little to no competition in the same genre...it's pretty clear cut to me.

Your point about Halo 3 vs. Reach (being in the same gen) is an interesting one.  Since it is in the same generation, you would argue that everyone in the "core" audience that bought Halo 3 should have also bought Reach, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So that means either the total number of "core" gamers on the 360 went down, the sales numbers for Halo 3 were inflated (bundles, what have you), or that the series decreased in popularity due to increased competition or other factors.

Really great post! That must of toke you a long time to write. :)

Yes, you're right, Smash went from 7Mil to 10.5Mil from GC to Wii, and a similar thing can be said for the Xboxes. By his own logic, Seece would be right to say:

"Majority of gamers arnt even interested in Microsoft home consoles .."

Hence the futility of his post. ;)

Note: COD doesn't count in my eyes, neither does kinect. They are not good barometers. It's as if I used Mario Kart Wii, it just isn't a good prototype...

I find it interesting that the same posters who complained that they owned a Wii and was gathering dust also claim that "real gamers" aren't interested in Nintendo platforms ... Doesn't this mean that they are not real gamers themselves?



Personally, I can't think of anyone who has a significant interest in gaming that didn't own a DS or a Wii; and the vast majority I know own both. The fact that third party publishers ignored this audience does not mean that it doesn't exist.

How do you know who owned what?

I dunno, maybe we'll be using the power of our phones or small devices and just buying a controller and connecting the device it to the tv, or maybe we'll be streaming games to any screen using services like onlive, or maybe something else. But consoles as we know them are going away soon, I can't see what the PS5 will be able to do that devices the size of Ipods and phones can't. Maybe we'll have devices like consoles that act as a media hub for the home, but I think in 10 years streaming videos games could possibly become the norm, and we won't be arguing about which console has the best specs. (Our phones will)

I'm not foolish enough to suggest that all "real" gamers owned a Wii or a DS, but when you look at their sales, the massive volume of software they moved, and the interest on dedicated sites it is obvious that a lot of "real" gamers are interested in Nintendo platforms

Seece, while being a bit of a failure by calling them "true gamers", is referring to "traditional core gamers", a term I coined to end the controversy of what is a "real gamer" since arguments about the games and isntall base never progressed past hurt feelings at being called "casual". Additionally, it solves the problem brought up with the elitest term "sales core", in which some smartass comes in and says that core refers to the people using the system at the moment, which was brought up because "core" to gamers, is almost a genre.

Traditional core gamers are ones who would buy the popular games on a system X many years ago, during the late 80's, and 90s. This would roughly reflect the well known games from NES, SNES, Genesis, 64, ps1.

In the sense of the traditional core, if all the numbers are completely accurate (which I've never been convinced of), MS has taken or "grown" nearly 40m traditional gamers.

Well back on topic, I agree with the statement that

"A dedicated game console is dead".

But I don't think that "consoles" in the sense of "hardware manufactured by a company that doesn't change over the lifetime of the device with a closed ecosystem" are dead.

I will agree that for developers, it's a real PITA to have so many different platforms. I mean Netflix has to work in browser, on iOS, on Android, on PS3, 360, Wii, etc. etc. It's a real pain, but humans are humans, I don't think there will ever be 1 solid standard for chip architectures or OS.