| Vinniegambini said: These are biased and very pro-nintendo statements. How about we look deeper and put some validity into them: 1. Nintendo's demographic Firstly, Nintendo has a different demographic and market than Sony and Xbox 360. Consequently, one's arguments between Nintendo and its competitors are not valid as they are competing for a different market share. Nintendo's market is geared towards the casual gamers, and individuals between the ages of 5-18 and have done so since the N64 era. Nintendo's IP's such as Pokemon, Mario, Kirby, Donkey Kong and so forth are commonly known by kids. As a result, one can argue, that Nintendo heavily markets their products for that demographic. Hence, it is the Disney of Video Games. Xbox 360 tried to penetrate that market with the Kinnect but failed to have a lasting impact due to Nintendo's strong footing in that area. However, in the fields where Nintendo lacks (online gaming and 'core-gamers'), Sony and Microsoft cover-up splendidly. Microsoft and Sony boasts some of the strongest IP's for that market; Halo, God of War, and Uncharted comes to mind. Nintendo is trying to gain some footing in that area but as Iwata mentioned in a Q&A, it cannot be done overnight as their competitors have had several years to do so. 2. The Winner of the Next-Generation It is hard to judge if the Wii U will be able to repeat the same success of the Wii. In my honest opinion, I believe so as they are laying the same strategy as they did for the Wii, a casual market. 'Core-gamers', as so they claim, have always looked to Sony and Microsoft, and will continue to do so until proven otherwise. Nevertheless, for the last decade, Nintendo has had the largest market share in hardware and software sales and this will remain the same throughout the next generation with the 3DS and Wii U. In the end, Sony and Microsoft will never be able to compete with Nintendo for the casual market and the 5-18 demographic as they lack the IP's that are associated with it. Nonetheless, Nintendo will have much difficulty to penetrate the 'core-market' as they lack the IP's and the fact that core-gamers in general, usually associate that market to Sony and Microsoft. |
1. Are we talking about the demographics that they're targeting, or the demographic they're succeeding in? Because it's hard to argue that Microsoft isn't targeting the casual demographic. Usher at E3? Dance Central? Kinectimals? Refusing to allow Rare to make mature games? Smart glass? Wreckateer? Microsoft's target demographic has shifted. You could say the same with Sony. Move? All Star Battle Royale? Wonderbook? Sports Champions? Carnival Island? Everybody Dance? Sony hasn't gone as casual as M$ but they're still plenty casual.
And it makes sense. The casual market is far larger than the hardcore market. It's important to have a decent following among the hardcore, but ultimately, the casual market will determine success more than hardcore gamer.
2. If that's the case, you seem to agree with the article for the most part. Nintendo will still lead the market, and Sony and Microsoft will lag behind. That was basically the gist of the article.
Here's the question though. Who will have more success breaking out of their shell. Will Microsoft/Sony have more success appealing to the casual market, or will Nintendo have more success breaking into the hardcore market? I think that hardcore gamers are by definition more likely to try out a new product, and I think that Nintendo WILL have many of the biggest "hardcore" franchises such as Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty. If this is the case, I think Nintendo can pick up many 'core' gamers who don't have a firm hardware allegiance. I don't think they'll be the dominant force in hardcore gaming, but they'll gain more hardcore fans than Microsoft/Sony will gain casual fans.
