The Nintendo Wii and Nintendo DS is easily the most popular thing since the invention of the light bulb if we compared it to the gaming industry.  Their easy to grasp gaming setups have captured the hearts of millions of old and new gamers who are ready to experience gaming from a different perspective.  Truly, the Wii and DS have graced the industry with innovation it desperately needed.

However, not everyone sees them as saving graces.  It's hard to go a day without a "mainstream" media site or silly fanboy claiming the Wii and DS as the destroyer of "hardcore" gaming.  Now most people understand why their claims are not only silly but pathetic in a way. The question is, "Why won't they shut up?"  It's funny that there is so much hatred over the two Nintendo gaming hardware available for apparently no reason.  Or is their validity?  I seek to answer a few things about the "casual" gaming market and then turn the tides on the dissenters:

1. Is the rising "casual" market hurting the industry? 

2. Is the rising "casual" market hurting "hardcore" gaming?

3. What is hurting the "hardcore" gaming market?

Now obviously the first thing that should be done is define casual and hardcore gaming.  Now there are differences between "casual" and casual.  And the same with "hardcore" and hardcore.  First, let's definite the technical terms.  A hardcore gamer is a gamer who games consistently and usually for a good portion of time in a week.  A casual gamer is generally a gamer who doesn't game consistently and only a decent amount of time per week.  Basically, the differences are between that of a hobbyist and "play on the weekends" type person. 

However, their are stark differences between that of the technical terms and the stereotypical ones.  A "hardcore" gamer is a gamer that generally plays for an extended amount of time per week and dwells in franchises that are usually mainstream franchises.  Usually they span across the genres of fighter, shooter, racer, platformer, ect.  The "casual" gamer generally plays for a decent amount of time per week and dwells on niche franchises.  Usually they span across simulation, puzzlers, part, IP based off an outside property, and music genres.  Essentially the technicalities are the same but their choices are what differs them.  However the stereotypes do not offer an answer for a gamer that plays Wii Play for 40 hours a week but I doubt the people that created these stereotypes would want that to be answered.  I'm not going to dwell into why these stereotypes are wrong, but they give me a basis.  

My first question deals with how the "casual" market is affecting the industry.  For now, "casual" and "hardcore" games will be based on the genres that the stereotypes suggest they play in.  Now obviously, I doubt most believe it is hurting the industry as a whole but this is to make a point.  Since the 5th generation, we've seen an explosion in the "casual" market.  Nintendo started such "casual" franchises as Mario Party, Hey You Pikachu and Pokemon Snap on the N64.  Mario Parties on the N64 sold 7.1 million copies worldwide and the franchise since has sold 25.3 million making it one of the most successful "casual" properties alive.  Pokemon Snap sold 3.63 million and Hey You Pikachu sold 1.83 million.  Nintendo definitely started strong with the market, but needed existing properties to sell them.  Other semi-quasi "casual" titles on the N64 were Mario Tennis and Mario Golf which gave an easier setup for such sports games; however these still had "hardcore" properties that separated from them being purists.

Sony and Playstation 1, on the other hand, saw huge success in the “casual” markets that it somewhat started and helped to gain ground.  Such IP's based off outside properties like Spiderman, Rugrats, Yu-Gi-Oh, A Bug's Life, and numerous more really took off on the PS1.  Also Sony properties such as Hot Shots Golf and IQ: Intelligent Qube started off well on the platforms.  Finally, 3rd party editions such as Dance Dance Revolution and Beatmania also saw success on the first console to really supply heavily to the "casual" market.  It also shouldn't be much of a surprise that it also sold over 100 million in its lifetime. 

During this time it's also fair to say that Gameboy was also making strides in the "casual" market as it ended its lifespan with almost 120 million consoles shipped.  It also held IP's based off outside properties succeeding along with a revival of simplistic games of the NES era to bring in more new gamers.  In essence, PS1 and GB worked hand in hand to build the game industry up to what we have now.

It’s important to understand that as soon as the "casual" market started to explode, so did the industry as a whole.  The 6th generation was no different.  Sony, once again led the way, with the Eyetoy, Singstar, and Buzz: Quiz.  By the 6th generation, the IPs based off outside properties was large and selling well and spanned across all platforms.  However, they still sold the best on the "casual" gaming giant that was the PS2.  Developers recognized this and such "casual" hits took off on the console like Guitar Hero.  In doing so, the PS2 has since shipped 140 million consoles and is currently the best selling gaming hardware ever.  Its ability to expand to the "casual" market was its key to success.

The Gamecube and Xbox, however, didn't go at the market as strongly.  Nintendo, who had virtually started attempts in the N64 era, had fewer attempts in the Gamecube era.  Mario Party and Mario sports titles continued to come out but they were lackluster compared to the last ones.  For the most part, Gamecube was a "hardcore" platform that catered to the core base and sold like one gaining only 20 million in sales.  Xbox catered to even fewer as only the Spiderman games were able to go platinum on the console.  However, it succeeded more so than the GC as it was able to introduce Xlive that boosted the "hardcore" attention away from what would have generally gone to the GC.  All and all, the "casual" market was dominated by Sony in the 6th generation.

Now we are onto the 7th generation and its obvious Wii and DS dominate the "casual" market.  But MS has since realized how important it is and has taken strides into it with games such as Lips, Viva Piñata, and You're in the Movies.  However, it’s been Nintendo who took the most strides with DS and Wii who introduced such series as Wii series, Brain Training, Other Training games, and Nintendogs.  They have reaped the benefits too.  Wii series has since sold more than 75 million units, Brain Training over 25 million, Nintendogs over 20 million, and other trainer games are over 10 million.  How has the hardware done?  Wii and DS are both the fastest selling hardwares ever.  Both have set records that have been unimaginable before this.  The PS2 and PS1 expansion is being expanded further. 

The biggest disappointment, though, has been on Sony's part in the "casual" market.  After basically making the "casual" market what it was today, they've barely released anything in the region.  The only franchise of theirs to even break a million is the semi-quasi "casual" game that is LittleBigPlanet.  Singstar, Buzz Quiz, and Hot Shots Golf have all underperformed.  The question is why?  The answer is Sony spent more time advertising such "hardcore" franchises like Resistance, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, and Motorstorm over that of the "casual" market games.  This is a huge change from the previous two consoles which advertised both as the main selling points.  How has this affected them?  The console has since struggled to hit 20 million after two years and sits in an ever growing 3rd place. 

To answer the question of "casual" gaming's importance in the industry is simple.  Casual "gaming" exploded during the 5th generation which saw the industry console hardware sales of that of around 150 million compared to that of around 80 million in the previous generation.  Then in the 6th generation it expanded even further to almost 200 million.  The handheld market has been no different.  Now in the 7th generation after 3 years, more than 80 million have already been sold.  Handheld market has not slacked off as well.  120 million for the GB, 80 million for the GBA, and 90 million already for the DS after 4 years.  PSP has also sold 40 million which puts the current handheld generation at over 130 million which is simply ungodly.  The software has increased exponentially as well as PS1 and PS2 combined for over 2 billion in software. 

"Casual" gaming has been proven to expand the markets by bringing in new gamers and appealing to their tastes with niche titles.  It's not surprise that Imagine and Carnival Games series are taking off.  The "casual" gaming market is by far the majority in console and handheld video gaming that buys the majority of the games.  The "casual" gamers also don't just buy the "casual" games but even buy the more mainstream games that we call "hardcore" games.  "Casual" gaming is a booster shot that has rid the industry from staleness and elitism.  There is no doubt that "casual" gaming is the best thing gaming has received since Super Mario Bros.

Now that we understand the history of "casual" gaming and how it’s a plus on the industry, it's important to answer the second question.  Has "casual" gaming hurt "hardcore" gaming or endangered it?  This is a very easy question to answer.  I will do this simply by taking some of the best selling games on the following platforms: PS1, PS2, N64, Wii, DS, GC, Xbox, 360, PSP, and PS3.  Of the top 10 best selling games on all of these platforms this amount of games are of the "hardcore" gaming market. 

PS1- 10

PS2- 10

PS3- 9

PSP- 10

N64- 10

NGC- 9

Wii- 4

NDS- 5

Xbox- 10

360- 9

Out of 100 titles, 86 of the top 10s are of the "hardcore" market.  Now we look at the most recent ones and see that more of the "casual" market is taking over the top 10 but for Wii and DS but this is easy to explain.  Of the 20 on DS and Wii, 18 of them are from Nintendo themselves which just hints at Nintendo's dominance of games on their own platforms comparatively rather than a shift to complete casual gaming.  Actually it's about a 50/50 split of the first party Nintendo games between "casual" and "hardcore" gaming which shows a good median. 

Point is "casual" gaming has not booted out "hardcore" gaming in any way.  Nor does it pose any threat.  The top developers in the "casual" gaming market currently, Nintendo and Ubisoft, still have numerous "hardcore" games in the pipeline.  Nor has either company showed in any interest to being completely dominated by one of the markets.  It's hard to think that the companies who have had the most success in the "casual" gaming market and not stop supporting the "hardcore" gaming market would lead other devs who have had more success in the "hardcore" gaming market to give up on that and get into the "casual" gaming market solely.  Instead this generation we are starting to see a molding of the two markets in almost all developers.  Instead of being completely dominated by the "hardcore" gaming development they are tacking on "casual" gaming development to maximize potential customers. 

However, this is what leads us to our third question.  It's clear the "casual" gaming market isn't hurting the industry but helping it and that it isn't hurting "hardcore" gaming development in the least bit as they have been able to coincide despite the influx in "casual" gaming sales.  So what could DESTROY "hardcore" gaming as we know it?  Well it's actually a very easy answer to state and explain.  I just stated how the big developers and small ones are getting into "casual" gaming development to maximize profits.  However this doesn't come without a reason.  If developers didn't think they needed to enter the "casual" gaming market then it is doubtful they ever would have.  Bethesda has yet to enter it because franchises like Fallout and Elder Scrolls sell millions and make numerous profits. However, so many developers have entered it lately.  Either it's good timing or their is reasoning.

The real question is, "What is making "casual" gaming development more appealing to developers?"  The answer is not only easy but a moron could answer it.  To get a full answer take a game like Carnival Games for a moment.  It's a stereotypical "casual" game that probably cost Take 2 less than a year and a million to develop, publish, distribute, and advertise.  However on Wii and DS it's combined for close to 3 million in sales which revenue makes it close to $115 million theoretically.  Now let's take a Take Two game called Grand Theft Auto IV.  To develop on the PS3 and 360 it took about three to four years to create.  It probably cost them close to $100 million to $150 million to develop, publish, distribute, and market.  ON PS3 and 360 it has 11.4 million copies.  In revenue that would be $690 million.  So for a profit of about $550-$600 million compared to $114 million from Carnival Games. 

Some are thinking, well what does this prove.  Nothing right now but let's think about what kind of series Grand Theft Auto is.  It is one of the largest properties in gaming today and Carnival Games was a nobody property.  However, it's only about to get 5x more in profitability.  Carnival Games was no risk and reaped millions in benefits while GTA IV was huge risk but reaped the benefits because of the property.  Let's look at another case study.  Let's take Midway for a moment.  To make Game Party it probably took less than a year and under a million to develop, publish, distribute, and market.  The game has sold over 1.4 million at price points of $20.  Theoretically its revenue would be $28 million.  Now let's take another game of theirs called Stranglehold.  Probably took 2-3 years and cost around $50 million to develop, publish, distribute, and market.  The game sold about 500,000 lifetime on the PS3 and 360.  Theoretically that is $30 million in revenue and for a $20 million loss.  It's no surprise that Midway is announcing fancial difficulties.

If you haven't caught on yet, there is one easy to point out destroyer of "hardcore" gaming: high development costs and long development times.  This is not even a hard one to understand.  This not only could destroy "hardcore" gaming but gaming in general.  The problem is that while the PS360 user bases are large enough to handle all these games, its fact that not every game is going to succeed.  With the media so rampant these days, to get success you need hype and to gain that hype you either need an amazing game or one with a large brand.  In the days of the PS2, GC, and Xbox you could escape that and release about 10-20 middle ground games a year and have one of them do well and you would make your profits there because none of them were extremely expensive.

However, with the HD consoles this is completely throw away.  No longer can you put 10-20 out on the console and hope that one does well.  First it's almost impossible for middle sized developers to do considering they need larger teams to develop for longer times.  Second, costs are so high that if 9 of those 10 games flop and the other one does amazing you are so deep in the red that you are filing bankruptcy.  What's your way out?  "Casual" gaming market.  IN this you are able to release those 10-20 games and hit big with one of them and you are living on top of the world again.  Unfortunately for Midway it was too late as Touchmaster and Game Party wasn't enough to save them.  But it's saved such developers like Disney, Ubisoft, Activision(at least get back on their feet), Majesco, and Sega.  All were having problems finding footing on the HD consoles is able to use the Wii, DS, and PS2 to have huge hits. 

So it's easy to make the relation.  Developers that are struggling on the HD platforms because of high development costs and long development times will look to the other consoles that are cheaper to develop for and shorter development times to help them out.  And if it really goes bad in the "hardcore" gaming market, they'll drop completely.  That is the death of "hardcore" gaming: high development costs and long development times.  On 360 and PS3 you can't afford to release a sub-par game because it'll destroy you unlike previous generations.  And if it's the case of Midway where it's even too late with the "casual" gaming market we'll see more of these middle-sized developers go down the toilet or bought out by larger developers that will reap the industry from diversity sending us back to 1983 when the market crashed in America.   This has the potential to wipe out gaming and "hardcore" gaming as we know and the economic recession isn’t helping them.  However, there's a bright spot, and that's "casual" market gaming.  As long as those big brands keep selling well they can find profits in "casual" market to pay for them. 

Overall this is quite a long and drawn out statement, but its points are valid.  "Casual" gaming is our FRIEND.  Not only is it our friend but it’s our savior in the industry.  Without it, HD gaming could literally destroy the market and all our precious franchises.  Before chastising the "casual" market think about that.  You want Carnival Games and its spin-offs to do well because you know its funding Take Two projects.  You want Game Party and Touchmaster to succeed because maybe it'll help Midway from the worst case scenario.  You want Nintendo, MS, and Sony to keep expanding it while still supporting "hardcore" gaming to set an example for the other developers.  Finally, you want "casual" gaming to succeed because eventually they will become mainstream gamers that buy those "hardcore" games.  "Casual" gaming gives us the balance we need to outweigh the high development costs and development times of HD gaming.  So treat those games and it's gamers with respect because without them, it is a dark and tragic future.

This one is longer than usual and with a more controversial point but I think most will enjoy it. I think some will not like my conclusion of course, but tough love is always the best route. I'll submit as for editing for a news story tomorrow. Do enjoy.

Well wish I could stay for the replies but I doubt there will be many anyways. Is a lot to read and that turns people off. But I'll check them tomorrow morning.

Some points:

1. Games which sell over a longer period of time have much GREATER publishing costs than games which are sold over a shorter period of time, relative to their sales.

A game which sells in small amounts over a longer period of time costs more because of:

• Small shipments increase transportation costs.
• They incur a cost for storage or continually small production runs of games.
• Increased costs from retailers, threat of being jostled off high margin retail shelves.

2. The Development/marketing/distribution costs you used for HD games was far too high. Even following the model of 1,000,000 sales = break even, that would still indicate that the total costs were under $30,000,000 which has been verified from several sources and even an Ubisoft executive said as much.

3. The Development/marketing/distribution costs for the "casual" games you listed were far too low. If you were talking about a DS game I would say it wasn't enough, especially considering my point 1.

I'll leave it at that for now.

Well I'll respond. I found your arguments persuasive and your view of the industry consistent with what I do know.

I agree completely that high development costs not only threaten the industry but discourage innovation and risk taking. It's just like what happened when Broadway became a fantastically expensive place to produce plays. It went from new plays and became a place that lives on revivals of old but proven safe material.

Risk taking in video games is inversely proportional to the cost of development. In major HD releases we see basically prettier version of rehashed games. Think how many games have a number in their name; GTA 4, MGS4, Halo 3. And even “new” ips without a number following their name tend to stick pretty close to proven genres and style. Little Big Planet was an exception and unfortunately its sales may not encourage others to follow. But costs are so high that almost every major game becomes a bet-the-ranch proposition. You stick to games that have already proven themselves.

Games for the Wii and the DS are comparatively inexpensive to develop so that companies can take more chances on new ideas. Some of them have flopped and a few, most noticeably Wii Fit have hit homeruns and changed the industry forever.

Wii Ware (and the competitive games on the Xbox, and PS3) are a bargain for both the developer and the purchaser so they are not afraid to try some daring and even wacky new ideas and we are afraid to give them a try for $10 or so.

So if the HD consoles seem to have so many highly rated games, it is in part because they are only producing games that they already know will be popular, with gamers and reviewers. Halo 3 was a very safe bet.

The Wii may not get as many guaranteed triple AAA rated hits, but it does get a lot more fresh and outside the box ideas; The Blob, Wii Fit, Raving Rabbits, Boom Blox, Wii Music and many others.

Perhaps the points are valid, but lots of the basis are plain wrong:
- described what hardcore and casual is, but not what "hardcore/casual game" and what "casual/hardocre gaming market" is. It's impossible to understand most of what's written without these definitions,
- the complete price of a game as revenue for the publisher/developer is just plain wrong. They get a fraction of that, more in the 20-30 %, but surely not 100 %. Some Forbes article recently claimed Nintendo had 65 % of the games price on their 1st party titles, that they publish, develop, market.

Someone didn't read all the way through.  I stated:

"For now, "casual" and "hardcore" games will be based on the genres that the stereotypes suggest they play in."

Paragraph 5, line 2 I believe.  If you are going to comment plz make you have read it all. 

I did say however I was not going to define what a real hardcore and casual game was because it wouldn't help further my point.  This is an editorial ya know. 

And people seem to be having issues with the revenue part.  I know they don't get all of it.  The wore, THEORETICALLY, is not used for no reason.  If I used the word, it has a purpose.  That purpose is to say its theoretical and not real.  The reason I did it that way is because it difficult to figure how much they are going to get out of every game but that for each title it's going to be about the same percentange.  So to make it fair across the board and for easy comparison I did it with 100%.  No matter what percent I did it at, it was going to be theoretical and it was goign to be the same.  The outcome wouldn't have mattered.

1. Good point but in the end it wouldn't weigh into much of what I'm getting at.  It'll increase the publishing costs of course but they'll still get back a fair amount in profits.  I mean they are selling some of these games for $40 that litterally cost them nothing to develop.  I mean I can bet out of that million, 70%-80% is publishing and distributing costs.

2. Once again I didn't know what the actual costs were, but this is an editorial not a research paper.  The point is to excite not bring down with factual info.  I chose such high numbers for GTA IV because I knew $100 million to $150 million was probably in the ball park.  I mean I know for a fact that over $100 million went into marketing just for Halo 3 and that even if GTA IV was somewhat similar it would have to be up in that range.  Now our middle of the line HD games like Stranglehold its tough to tell how much those costs but I suspected $50 million to be an inciteful amount as it is.  My bets is that most HD games probably costs in that $50 million range.  Now the one a year ones, they probably costs more in the $20 to $30 million range depending on which series we are talking about because obviously they were developed in a shorter time frame. 

3.  Really I thought it was way too high.  It's hard to imagine that imagine would cost Ubisoft more than a million.  Unless it's all marketing and distribution.

Your missing the point here guys. I'm not here to give a perfect idea of development costs and profits and revenue thereof. I'm here to give a fair assessment of profits and revenue and an idea of what development costs. Not all DS and Wii games are cheap to make. Red Steel costs Ubisoft $20 million to make and Super Mario Galaxy probably cost Nintendo over $50 even developing for the Wii. Some DS high end titles probably costs close to $20. But on average for Wii and DS titles, they don't cost that much. Now devs could make them cost that much if they put the same effort int, but they haven't been doing that and especially for the "casual" market.

I'm not here to give complete accuracies but a good enough comparison such that my point works. Actually I didn't even need to go through that. All I had to do was present the cases of a few dev's financial reports and my point would have been valid no matter what people say. So if you want to keep discussing my numbers and where I got them from, that's fine, but your missing the picture. They are good enough for preliminaries to understand why the point makes sense so how about leaving it at that. Unless of course you want to go find the development costs for the games and exact percentage for return profits on revenue sales to retailers by companies.

Good write up Zucas. I don't have much to add nor dispute here.