welll there are many casual games out there so these casual games may go out and buy more than 1 or 2 now that more and more appealing casual games are released (such as MK Wii)

Because casual gamers want to play Wii games with friends using the Wii-mote.

Controllers on the other consoles are hard to use and less fun. Casual gamers will much rather play Mario Kart and Wii sports over the other casual games found on 360 and ps3, i can't really think of any.

Naum said: Dragon007 said: yushire said: Ok, sorry about that. Even with shovelware coming out on the Wii, why does it keep selling? 2 million software is sold a week, I know that even Wii Sports can't be produced 2 million times in a week. With that attach rate, the gamers who make up such a large sum of weekly sales are the core gamers. Like what everyone says here, only the casual gamer buys 1 or 2 games in an entire year. So why the 2 million? I fixed it already sorry if no one understands it first ---Edit by Montana: I fixed it again. Now it should be much more legible.     Who said core gamers were buying the Wii? I would argue that non-gamers are buying the Wii, ie people who never played games before the Wii came out. I think to most hardcore gamers, the Wii is about as appealing as the Gamecube and we all know how well that did. If the Wiimote doesn't rock your boat what's different? SMG = Sunshine Brawl = Melee MP3: Corruption = MP2: Echoes Mario Kart = Double Dash Twilight Princess = ...Twilight Princess I guess you could say the same for the PS3 Final Fantasy XIII = Final Fantasy X DMC4 = DMC3 MGS4 = MGS2 etc... But the difference is the PS3 took a significant step forward and the PS2 was successful so it would make sense for it to sell anyway.  surePS3 took a significant step forward(grahpics nintendo took at least 3 significant steps forward ( motion sensing)

As much as Wii fans try to downplay graphcis, they are extremely important, they can greatly enhance the joy of playing a game. It's like saying the cinematography doesn't matter in a movie.

And it's not just the graphics, the gameplay is affected,  it allows for improved AI, more things happening simultaneously etc..we need the industry to evolve.

A lot of gamers including myself, see the Wii as a slightly enhanced Gamecube with gimmicky motion controls. It's not really a step forward, it's been done before, they're just moving to the side.

 

Dragon007 said: yushire said: Ok, sorry about that. Even with shovelware coming out on the Wii, why does it keep selling? 2 million software is sold a week, I know that even Wii Sports can't be produced 2 million times in a week. With that attach rate, the gamers who make up such a large sum of weekly sales are the core gamers. Like what everyone says here, only the casual gamer buys 1 or 2 games in an entire year. So why the 2 million? I fixed it already sorry if no one understands it first ---Edit by Montana: I fixed it again. Now it should be much more legible.       Who said core gamers were buying the Wii? I would argue that non-gamers are buying the Wii, ie people who never played games before the Wii came out.  I think to most hardcore gamers, the Wii is about as appealing as the Gamecube and we all know how well that did. If the Wiimote doesn't rock your boat what's different? SMG = Sunshine Brawl = Melee MP3: Corruption = MP2: Echoes Mario Kart = Double Dash Twilight Princess = ...Twilight Princess I guess you could say the same for the PS3 Final Fantasy XIII = Final Fantasy X DMC4 = DMC3 MGS4 = MGS2 etc... But the difference is the PS3 took a significant step forward and the PS2 was successful so it would make sense for it to sell anyway.

First, i'd like to point out a couple of things about your post. The core gamers are buying the Wii. The industrys core is its "casual" audience, and as said, you were referring how GC appealed to the "hardcore", which it did, but it didn't have the casuals, unlike PS2.
Or if we put in context what i said earlier, PS2 had the "hardcore" (the casuals that PSX gathered), while GC had mostly the Mario/Zelda fans.
Secondly, obviously you haven't played either Sunshine or SMG and MKDD or MKWii and Metroid Primes and the Twilight Princess comparision failed with its logic, since it had simultanous release on both platforms.
And even if the games would be "remake" type of sequels, the around 22M userbase is so small, in comparision to six times as big PS2 userbase, added with the same sized XB userbase, that the gaming audience outside GC owners would still have the games as "new".
Thirdly, the Wii Remote does have its appeal, but without the software supporting it, it's nothing. As for the "hardcore" games on Wii, atleast MP3, RE4, REUC and MKWii have managed to use the functionalities in the ways they should be used.
Fourthly, let's look at what kind of steps PS3 took forward: Improvement in processing power/graphics, internal memory by default, downloadable games, online by default (and notionworthy motion sensing, which isn't getting much support).
What Wii took forward: Improvement in processing power/graphics (not as big as PS3), internal memory by default, downloadable games, online by default, motion sensing controller (wholly different from Sixaxis, which is supported in nearly all games), BC.
Let's count out the features that the previous consoles had as peripherals, which leaves PS3 with graphical improvements and motion control (again, rarely getting a decent support) and Wii with graphical improvements, on-board memory, online (on a side note that Phantasy Star Online did use this feature, but outside of that, never got support in games), motion sensing controller, BC.
So, Wii actually improved a lot more than PS3.
Fifthly, i agree that PS3 was supposed to get the PSX audience, if Nintendo wouldn't have disrupted the market.

Beacuse there is plenty of dam good games for core gamers, plenty of shovelware for new owners.

Dragon007 said: Naum said: Dragon007 said: yushire said: Ok, sorry about that. Even with shovelware coming out on the Wii, why does it keep selling? 2 million software is sold a week, I know that even Wii Sports can't be produced 2 million times in a week. With that attach rate, the gamers who make up such a large sum of weekly sales are the core gamers. Like what everyone says here, only the casual gamer buys 1 or 2 games in an entire year. So why the 2 million? I fixed it already sorry if no one understands it first ---Edit by Montana: I fixed it again. Now it should be much more legible.     Who said core gamers were buying the Wii? I would argue that non-gamers are buying the Wii, ie people who never played games before the Wii came out. I think to most hardcore gamers, the Wii is about as appealing as the Gamecube and we all know how well that did. If the Wiimote doesn't rock your boat what's different? SMG = Sunshine Brawl = Melee MP3: Corruption = MP2: Echoes Mario Kart = Double Dash Twilight Princess = ...Twilight Princess I guess you could say the same for the PS3 Final Fantasy XIII = Final Fantasy X DMC4 = DMC3 MGS4 = MGS2 etc... But the difference is the PS3 took a significant step forward and the PS2 was successful so it would make sense for it to sell anyway. surePS3 took a significant step forward(grahpics nintendo took at least 3 significant steps forward ( motion sensing) As much as Wii fans try to downplay graphcis, they are extremely important, they can greatly enhance the joy of playing a game. It's like saying the cinematography doesn't matter in a movie. And it's not just the graphics, the gameplay is affected, it allows for improved AI, more things happening simultaneously etc..we need the industry to evolve. A lot of gamers including myself, see the Wii as a slightly enhanced Gamecube with gimmicky motion controls. It's not really a step forward, it's been done before, they're just moving to the side.

You keep confusing your opinion with fact and then try to claim that most "gamers" feel the same way. There are just as many people who would say the opposite. But please, don't let this get in the way of your condescending. 

I think people have got it very wrong thinking that "hardcore" gamers buy more than "casuals".

While many hardcore gamers are earning a wage, a substantial proportion of them are teenagers who have to rely on generous parents and a Saturday job to buy their games. Their budget is very limited so they can't buy many games. Obviously there are older hardcore gamers earning good money but they don't represent a large proportion of the games market.

The new casuals Nintendo has brought in don't have that problem. Most of them are adults with a steady income who can buy a Wii game with their weekly supermarket shop where previously they would have picked up a DVD.

Going on my own experience of previously non-gaming friends who've picked up Wiis, they buy a lot of games. As Nintendo releases more top titles like Wii Fit I think we're going to see extremely high Wii attach rates.

ferret1603 said: I think people have got it very wrong thinking that "hardcore" gamers buy more than "casuals". While many hardcore gamers are earning a wage, a substantial proportion of them are teenagers who have to rely on generous parents and a Saturday job to buy their games. Their budget is very limited so they can't buy many games. Obviously there are older hardcore gamers earning good money but they don't represent a large proportion of the games market. The new casuals Nintendo has brought in don't have that problem. Most of them are adults with a steady income who can buy a Wii game with their weekly supermarket shop where previously they would have picked up a DVD. Going on my own experience of previously non-gaming friends who've picked up Wiis, they buy a lot of games. As Nintendo releases more top titles like Wii Fit I think we're going to see extremely high Wii attach rates.

Nice to see people who see the thing likewise. You were using empiric evidence, while i was looking at the history.
Btw, did you read my posts in this thread about hardcore and casual? I mean next generation these people are the hardcore.

Dragon007 said: As much as Wii fans try to downplay graphcis, they are extremely important, they can greatly enhance the joy of playing a game. It's like saying the cinematography doesn't matter in a movie. And it's not just the graphics, the gameplay is affected, it allows for improved AI, more things happening simultaneously etc..we need the industry to evolve. A lot of gamers including myself, see the Wii as a slightly enhanced Gamecube with gimmicky motion controls. It's not really a step forward, it's been done before, they're just moving to the side.

 Graphics are important and so is processing power, both do all the things that were said. However as power increases the return you get from the power increase deminishes (the law of deminishing returns). The graphical jump from the 4th to the 5th was bigger than 5th to the 6th was bigger than 6th to the 7th if you see what I'm saying.

Thus Nintendo instead of increasing  power for a limited return attempted (extremely successfully) to increase immersion through a different technique, by improving the control scheme. As you can see by the sales by and large people find the increased immersion through motion controls to be more appealing than the increased immersion through graphical and processing upgrades.

Therefore the Wii is a step forward, its just a step forward in a different direction to the one that the PS3 and X360 have taken, and a more successful step at that.

To expand upon what Rath is saying: