For some people it's FPS.  I'd consider it more "traditional" safe games.  The majority of games we get that are just like every other game.

Once again though... I'd say your point is wrong.  Dan Brown only gets attention because his writing is in fact... good.  It's expecting his writing will sell.

His writing isn't technically bad... nor is it's production level bad... only on an artistic scale is it bad.  It's level is actually GOOD since what he does is hard.  Name any popular "niche" author you want and I'd be they couldn't right a Dan Brown book andymore then Dan Brown could write a book like theirs.

There are TONS of people who want to be Dan Brown and have a good levels of what you would consider technical writing... but can't succeeed.

By the way.  Emphasis on technical writing lately has been a general downfall of modern classical literature.  People didn't used to feel so tied to the "laws" of storytelling.  Lots of classics are told by putting "technical writing" on it's ass.

Like the Importance of Being Earnest.  A Classic play written COMPLETLY with flat characters.

To clarify: My position is that games can't be "hardcore", only gamers can, depending on the amount of time and passion they devote.

Dan Brown writes clichéd and slightly clumsy sentences with too many adjectives. He constantly tells instead of showing and even the proofreading is pretty bad. Even I, and I'm not a native speaker, could pick out at least one pretty bad spelling/grammatical mistake per page.

I can acceed that he writes according to the rules of the "thriller" and that he wouldn't have had success without doing that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "niche". Do you mean genre novels or high-brow literature?

Anyway: my original point wasn't about being a hit, or selling well, it was about becoming a "phenomenon". Something that is read by people who never read books, watched by people who never go to the cinema, listened to by people who never buy CDs and played by people who never play video games.

Such a position isn't really meaningful in this conversation... since the point is.  It's a lot harder to capture a non hardcore audience then a hardcore one.  So classificatiosn of specific games are pointless.

As for Bad grammatical and spelling mistakes.  That would be the editors fault no? 

Bad spelling and grammer are really more problems for the editor.  I mean if we fault the writer much about grammer that makes E.E. Cummings the worst Poet who has ever lived.

As for "Telling" instead of Showing.  It's once again something that's going to depend on your audience.  If your audience would perfer to be told... then it's better to right that way.

To become a phenomenon you need to be both great and know what the wider audience likes.  This gets you the media that gets people to buy it.

If you didn't have A and B, you either wouldn't get the press... or your book would get the press and it would flop.

I think succeed or not, their next generation machine will have it included from the start.  Not as standard, but included.  For example, MS would have in their console pack:  NextBox with improved Natal + standard wireless controller.  Sony would have: PS4 with improved PSEye + Wand + standard wireless controller.

Are we misunderstaning each other here? I'm just saying that I find labeling games "hardcore" or casual" is useless. You're saying that isn't meaningful, then you take the same position?

Bringing modern poetry into a discussion about grammar or spelling would be pretty useless, and you're right, it should be his editors problem, in the same way the flow of the content is. When it isn't caught, it's a problem with the technical quality of the end product, no matter who's fault it is.

You're still confusing "hits" and "phenomenons".

Which is where my original question was trying to head; I think there's an unanswered question of whether the Wii is a "hit" or a "phenomenon".

Not really.  Your definition of "phenomenon" is largely nonexitant from what i can tell of you definition of it.

Hype largely doesn't sell stuff to people who don't want it.  Hype sells stuff to people who do want it.  Stuff gets hyped because it's something the general audience would want.

The Wii got hyped because the Wii was something more then one small niche of the population wanted.  Had you taken... say the PS3 and given it Wii hype... it wouldn't of moved that many more consoles then it already has.  The hype train would of started... the general population would of given the PS3 a look... and would of said "Who cares.  I don't want that."

All hype does is get peoples attention looking somewhere they wouldn't normally look.  After that it's the products own merits that depend on whether it's successful or not.

All phenomenon's are hits.

But all hits aren't phenomenons. Please go back and read what I've written, I think I have defined what I mean by "phenomenon" pretty well.

You've earlier seemed to claim that if something has a certain level of quality, it will get hype. Was I mistaken? Have you gone away from that point of view? Do i misunderstand you this time?

I know why the Wii recieved hype. I also understand that it wouldn't have worked with the PS360. Try to understand what I mean by the difference between "phenomenons" and "hits". It'll make this discussion more interesting for the both of us.

(BTW: I still think a polished turd can be marketed to hit levels, but it's not so interesting for the discussion)

If something has a certain level of quality it will get hype.  Mainstream quality.  It needs to be both mainstream and of high quality.

Maybe we think of "hype" as being different things? To me, it's just the amount of news stories, mentions in daily conversations and such. And no, lots of famous pieces of music, literature and art were virtually unknown, or at the very least not popular, in their own time. Hyping came later, and usually in unforseeable ways. Some pieces of art have never been "popular", but can continue to sell (or attract - whatever) for hundreds of years.

I do agree that something that has been hyped to the mainstream needs a minimum quality in order not to flop though. It is entirely uncontroversial to say that Dan Brown (still just an example here) is bad writer. I'm not the only one saying it by any means. I do think he reaches the minimum level requiered though.

Did you understand what I mean by hits != phenomenons? If not, we should probably just quit, since we're not really getting any further.

What both platforms need is some stellar games for these new interfaces. I haven't seen that from either yet (though AE4 does pique my interest). Further more they will need great advertising of said software. Microsoft is great when it comes to advertising their hits. That alone will determine adoption. I would say 10 million would be the amazing lucky high cap for either device. 15 to 20 depending on how long Microsoft is willing to hold out on the 360 this generation.

2011 = 5 million
2012 = 9 million
2013 = 11.5 million
2014 = 13.25 million

Adjust upwards if either of them develop a true hit software ala wii sports, play, fit, Nintendogs, brain training etc still think max is 20 million if the stars align.