On Nintendo Abandoning The "Hardcore"

Over the past week I have heard a number of people mention that Nintendo's focus on Wii Fit durring the presser indicated that they no longer care about their old audience. I don't think this is necessarily the case. The way I look at it is Wii Fit is going to be more interesting to the mainstream press, who if they want to be a market leader they need to be seen in. A lot of people, even gamers do not read the blogs or listen to podcasts they buy what they hear about on TV. If you look around their gamble worked they ended up having a big photo on the front of CNN's tech section and a lot of individual papers which is the kind of exposure that any company can use.

They also seem to have made an effort to balance the press conference with significant playtime on Metroid and Mario which both look awesome. They knew that they had to get the mainstream with the conference not hands on and that they could get info to the hardcore by giving gaming press hands on time. So in the end I think that Nintendo is making a genuine effort to actually be the And company they claim to be. Heck I can't remember who said it, but the same person who felt that Nintendo was leaving them out was the one who cited both Mario and Metroid as show highlights.

I do have some issues with the media they released. For starters the Zapper is a bit of a disappointment as I wanted more than a plastic shell, but on the flipside it is hard to argue with 20 bucks including some software. Second I would have liked some info on Battalion Wars I am really hyped for that game and they need to let the hardcore know that it is coming. Also the Sales info and charts could have been less of a focus. Finally more should have been done to pimp Zack and Wiki the funky puzzle adventure game that Capcom is making as it needs all the attention it can get.

I guess the only worry I have is that Ninty may be spreading themselves too thin and confusing third parties as they seem unsure of which type of consumer to chase. Thoughts?

-OMG

So in the end I think that Nintendo is making a genuine effort to actually be the And company they claim to be. Heck I can't remember who said it, but the same person who felt that Nintendo was leaving them out was the one who cited both Mario and Metroid as show highlights.

That was me, and you make a good point. My bemoaning Nintendo leaving me behind is more a question of focus and intention as the company moves forward. The only core games they showed are ones we've known about and seen since before the system even launched. Mario Kart was new, but even that is looking like a simpler, more streamlined version of the previous games. Nintendo has given us no indication we're going to see any innovation from them targeted toward gamers rather than the mass market who snaps up Wii Sports and Wii Fit.

The last original game based on a new idea and character we saw from Nintendo was targeted at gamers and it was called Pikmin. Every new, original game line from them since has been titles like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Brain Training and Nintendogs. I don't blame them for making money and I'm glad they are diversifying the industry, but as a selfish Nintendo fan who has been playing their games since I was five, they haven't been showing me much since Zelda launched on the Wii.

IF I were a third party I would fill in the gaps Nintendo doesn't cover. I think some of them (3rd parties) have the wrong strategy which is to make all these casual games for the Wii. Some of that is good, but I think then you're competing head on with NIntendo who is putting their AAA teams on that stuff. Instead fill in the gaps where there is less competition.

I mean as a 3rd party making a AAA fps I would actually prefer to release on the Wii this fall intead of on the 360 where you're going to get creamed by Halo3 (if I could press a magic button and switch platforms.)

AS more of a casual gamer lately I can tell I don't just want all cute games. I like playing the stuff I played before, but I just don't have time for career modes and 1000 options and all that stuff. I can do with the controls being simplified a tad too.

What I'm talking about having more arcade games. Remember all those fun racers in the arcades? That's what I'm talking about. Let me see AAA titles like that.

Remember the really old stuff like BAttlezone or not quite as old stuff like GAuntlet etc. None of that stuff is cute, but it sure was fairly easy to pick up and play although hard to master.

I want to see that type of mentality in Wii games, but done in a AAA manner. Nintendo does it in their gamer games. A game like MarioKart is pretty streamlined and yet a blast. IT's hard to master and fun to play with others and has AAA production values.

I see your point Certis, and it can easily be tied to my concerns regarding them spreading themselves too thin. In their efforts to court this new audience they still turn out a few top quality hardcore games, but the bulk of their creativity gets used up on all their market expanding plans. As for innovating on Mario Kart, I think the last time they did that was Double Dash and the overall reaction form the community was I don't want you to screw with the formula this much again. I would have loved to hear more about how EA's new Medal of Honor Wii will be set up for the Zapper and the multi-player. Also the balance board stuff could have been offset by mentioning how it could be used for hard core games. I mean imagine a boxing game that uses the current chuck-mote combo and the board for really being able to dodge or an action game with bullet time that would allow you to really feel like you are dodging bullets. We may never see it, but I would love to do it. Lets get me a dev kit and a team see what happens

Trip1ex I think that some third parties do have the right idea, which is to say the idea you mentioned above. The big one that comes to mind is Atlus, Trauma Center: New Blood was one of my top announcements to come out of the past week. It is that arcade type game, but offers plenty of challenge. The news that it will support online leaderboards and co-op play is icing on the cake.

Your ideas about the balance board intrigue me... imagine a snow/surf/skate boarding game that took advantage of these features? Tight-rope walking etc...

That'd be cool. The question is, will we see those applications and does the balance board have enough freedom to facilitate those types of applications.

I think the most prudent route for nintendo is to release peripherals that have multiple uses and thus revenue streams.

Duoae wrote:

I think the most prudent route for nintendo is to release peripherals that have multiple uses and thus revenue streams.

Why would peripherals equal revenue streams?

Because if you sell an expensive thing like the balance board (and it will be expensive if you consider how much the wiimote and nunchuck cost to buy) then you better make it worthwhile in the long term rather than just being for a one-off product - eg. imagine if Guitar Hero controller wasn't compatible with GH2 and 3? Or think of all those "innovative" snowboarding controllers or the DDR mats.

Sure, i'll bet they all sold really well. But they were underutilised as products and as such their revenue potential was not fully realised.

Once the input device has been bought a consumer is more likely to buy more products that justify their buying it. Also, the more products there are that support the device, the more likely partially interested consumers will be to buy the device.

A good example of that last one is the 3 dimensional spacial awareness system that plugged into the PS2... forget what it was called but it was two wires that strapped from your wrists to a base unit. There just weren't the games that took advantage of the system to make many people buy into it.

I just want them to realize that there is a group of people who would love to play a new Earthbound game in America, and bring over Mother 3 already.

That makes sense. The remote technology is unbelievably cheap, but that doesn't discount your strategy really.

Be thankful you got the original earthbound game that was released in the US. The only experience i have of those games is fan-movies on youtube and Ness appearing in Super Smash Bros Melee.

This brings up an interesting question. What indicates that a particular game is targeted at the "hard core" vs. the "mass market."

I have to admit to a certain distaste for this terminology because it introduces a hierarchy of value that I don't think really exists. This is also why I don't really like the term "casual" with respect to games. It implies that the people who play them are not serious, which I'm not sure is true. This is probably just me over-interpreting things though.

I think Nintendo is following the course that will allow them survival. If this direction takes them away from the core gamers, I tend to think that this is because the core gamers to some extent have told Nintendo that they aren't interested. It is of course, not that clear cut, but this is at least part of the issue. In particular, I find the constant complaints about "cute" or "kiddie" games to be shallow in their analysis. Zelda: Wind Waker in particular was not really my cup of tea, but it was a brilliant piece of art direction that a lot of people just cut down as "kiddie" without really thinking about it. I found it much more interesting to look at than the more "realistic" Zelda:TP or the strange mix of fantasy and hyper-realism in something like Gears.

Ok. Now I'm babbling.

psu_13 wrote:

This brings up an interesting question. What indicates that a particular game is targeted at the "hard core" vs. the "mass market."

To a small extent the nature of the content like adult themes, but more than anything it has to do with the complexity of the input device. Most people are terrified of buttons.

Not to mention "time to game".

I'd class myself as a casual reader. I read few magazines and have read about 5 books for pleasure in the past year (not including stuff i read for work and researchy). I consume articles found on the net about technology, news and gaming.
Compare this with my reading habits when i was 15ish and it'd be completely different - i read much more then, but gamed much less.

Similarly there can be parallels drawn between pro and casual sports players.

[edit] Just to clarify, i'm not saying that a hardcore gamer could not have a small amount of time to game but that the typical time that they want to devote to gaming is different to a casual gamer.

Certis wrote:

My bemoaning Nintendo leaving me behind is more a question of focus and intention as the company moves forward. The only core games they showed are ones we've known about and seen since before the system even launched.

You know, that's a tough issue on whether they're leaving core gamers behind or whether core gamers left them. Based on what I've read on this board, core gamers demand the best graphics and complex gameplay, which requires a machine that was more expensive than the traditional console. It seems more like a separation caused by reconcilable differences, depending on what happens with the Wii's library down the road.

trip1eX wrote:

IF I were a third party I would fill in the gaps Nintendo doesn't cover. I think some of them (3rd parties) have the wrong strategy which is to make all these casual games for the Wii. Some of that is good, but I think then you're competing head on with NIntendo who is putting their AAA teams on that stuff. Instead fill in the gaps where there is less competition.

But isn't this exactly why the 3rd parties embraced, then abandoned the GameCube? People who buy Nintendo systems as the ONLY SYSTEM don't seem to want anything except what Nintendo puts out. And those of us who want to play the traditional Nintendo franchises AND top quality FPS games are going to have either a Wii and a 360, or a Wii and a PS3... and they're going to buy the really hardcore games (like MADDEN, or HALO3, etc.) for their hardcore systems with the hardcore graphics and CPU capablity.

I STILL want to know if any 3rd party Wii software has been selling, and in what kind of numbers. Lots of people are scrambling to produce titles, but are the casual gamers who bought it as a $250 "Wii Sports Party Machine" going to actually BUY new titles? I don't know. Can anyone link to any data on software sales?

I assume the lack of 3rd party titles has more to do with the number of systems in homes than the people with the systems. This seems like the first generation since the SNES where making 3rd party titles for a Nintendo home console makes good financial sense - disks are cheap, people own the console, and development costs are low.

As for FPSes, the Wiimote/Nunchuck makes for damn fine control.

There's a clear change regarding the overall focus, but I certainly wouldn't say that they totally quit what they used to make in the past. Fire Emblem is unlikely to be the only title Intelligent Systems is working on, and Nintendo probably didn't buy Monolith Soft to have them work on, let's say, Wii Bodybuilding.

To be frank, I'm glad that they didn't announce a new Zelda game. A little break wouldn't hurt the series, hey, it worked for Metroid, too. That's coming from someone, who played pretty much every Zelda game there was sans the CDi gems. Why they decided to not announce titles like Advance Wars 2 or Mario Party DS at the E3 event directly rather than just through some press release - one of thousands this week - is beyond me. Like Certis, I wouldn't mind seeing something new though. That's not to say that they didn't innovate - Christ, just look at the Wii or the DS itself. In terms of 'core games' there hasn't been a Nintendo title that left in impression like let's say Shadow of the Colossus in the past years.

Wouldn't want to base my future expectations on the E3 showing though. I don't think they couldn't show more software - they didn't want to. Isn't Nintendo expected to show up at TGS this year again after only occasionally holding a keynote speech in the past? Wouldn't be surprised if that one ends up being more interesting in terms of announcements than E3.

Also, as trip1eX said, this might be an opportunity for third-parties to jump in and cover what Nintendo may not be totally focused on anymore. Maybe the Wii's the first Nintendo system where the best (and maybe even best-selling) action-adventure or racing game isn't one made by the platform holder.

SommerMatt wrote:

But isn't this exactly why the 3rd parties embraced, then abandoned the GameCube? People who buy Nintendo systems as the ONLY SYSTEM don't seem to want anything except what Nintendo puts out. And those of us who want to play the traditional Nintendo franchises AND top quality FPS games are going to have either a Wii and a 360, or a Wii and a PS3... and they're going to buy the really hardcore games (like MADDEN, or HALO3, etc.) for their hardcore systems with the hardcore graphics and CPU capablity.

I think the reason was and is install base.

The GC wasn't selling as well here (it slid into 3rd place) and thus 3rd parties abandoned the platform.

This time around the Wii, at least so far in 2k7, is outselling the competition combined by a healthy margin and remains sold out 33 weeks after launch.

Most folks don't buy 2 consoles. Most buy 1. The other systems also cost alot more than before and the games cost more and the 360 charges $50/yr on top of it for online play. Alot of folks might like a little online play without paying through the nose for it.

And again there is little competition on the Wii for, say, online fps games. That's why 3rd parties should look at the platform for those games and not pigeon hole the Wii as only for casual gamers. I wouldn't recommend this if there was a ton of competition, but there's like none in some of these genres. IT's a perfect opportunity to stake out a solid position in a genre on the Wii that Nintendo doesn't cover. It would take treating these games as AAA titles though and not half-ass ports.

If you don't think they would sell then look at sales of ZElda:TP and Red STeel which was approaching 1 mil sold a few months ago. 1 mil is pretty good for a title that obviously was rushed to make launch. Zelda is a NIntendo title, but it's further proof there's an audience for gamer games. I have a feeling the RE4 port will do quite well too. We'll see next week.

Another reason that these kinds of games would sell well on the Wii is because of the controller. You're not going to get that controller experience on another platform.

trip1eX wrote:

I think the reason was and is install base.

The GC wasn't selling as well here (it slid into 3rd place) and thus 3rd parties abandoned the platform.

This time around the Wii, at least so far in 2k7, is outselling the competition combined by a healthy margin and remains sold out 33 weeks after launch.

yeah, and that's my point. All those people buying the Wii is fine and dandy. Are they buying software? It doesn't matter one bit if the system's install base is 10 million or 50 million, if people aren't interested in software. I'm curious to see hard sales numbers.

Most folks don't buy 2 consoles. Most buy 1. The other systems also cost alot more than before and the games cost more and the 360 charges $50/yr on top of it for online play. Alot of folks might like a little online play without paying through the nose for it.

And again there is little competition on the Wii for, say, online fps games. That's why 3rd parties should look at the platform for those games and not pigeon hole the Wii as only for casual gamers. I wouldn't recommend this if there was a ton of competition, but there's like none in some of these genres. IT's a perfect opportunity to stake out a solid position in a genre on the Wii that Nintendo doesn't cover. It would take treating these games as AAA titles though and not half-ass ports.

Who on this board has a Wii as their only system? No one that is a serious gamer is going to buy a Wii as their "universal" game playing machine... most people who WANT AAA FPS games are going to be buying one of the other two systems. From what I've heard and read here, most people who bought one haven't even plugged it in for a long time.

If you don't think they would sell then look at sales of ZElda:TP and Red STeel which was approaching 1 mil sold a few months ago. 1 mil is pretty good for a title that obviously was rushed to make launch. Zelda is a NIntendo title, but it's further proof there's an audience for gamer games. I have a feeling the RE4 port will do quite well too. We'll see next week.

Saying that ZELDA sells on a Nintendo system is a no brainer I mean, that's my point... first party games sell and always will sell. People buy Nintendo hardware for the specific purpose of playing Nintendo software. As for RED STEEL... I haven't seen the sales figures, but again, launch games ALWAYS sell pretty well, because they're the only thing available. It's how well the other 3rd party games sell that will determine whether the platform will have long term "legs."

I am not saying this because I hope it "fails" or something... I'm just honestly curious.

Another reason that these kinds of games would sell well on the Wii is because of the controller. You're not going to get that controller experience on another platform.

well, you're right that the controller is what sets this system apart.

I definitely considered Pikmin to be a casual game. Maybe that was just me.

vgchartz.com is a good place to look at sales of consoles and games.

I agree with what you guys are saying, its hard to complain that nintendo isnt doing enough for the hardcore gamers when they are going to be putting out metroid, mario, and SSBB by the end of the year. Also I think Nintendo has gotten itself in a sort of bind, they seem to have so many franchises that everyone expects them to not only remake on every console but to remake every couple of years.

I think this is why you see such a disparity between the innovation on casual games compared to hardcore games. Before the games that you mentioned certis the only game i can think that was focused for casuals was wario ware, so basically they were forced to create new franchises if they wanted to seriously expand into the casual market.

On the topic of 3rd party games, its sort of a chicken and the egg argument. I think its obvious that a console will sell better with better 3rd party support, and a console will get better 3rd party support if the console is popular. That being said in my mind i thought the ps2 truly became the king of the last generation when FF10, Grand theft auto 3, and Devil may cry, came out for ps2 exclusively.

SommerMatt wrote:

but again, launch games ALWAYS sell pretty well, because they're the only thing available. "

That's exactly my original point. That's why you would think about putting a AAA fps game on the Wii instead of the 360.

And since when doesn't install base matter? I mean come on. You know in general and for every platform afaik, install base equates to more software sales. Maybe that will change this generation, but I doubt it.

Who on this board has a Wii as their only system? No one that is a serious gamer is going to buy a Wii as their "universal" game playing machine... most people who WANT AAA FPS games are going to be buying one of the other two systems. From what I've heard and read here, most people who bought one haven't even plugged it in for a long time.

If Metroid Prime shows 3rd parties how to make an FPS on the Wii, I think it will jump. I only own a Wii, but I think most of you would say I'm a casual gamer. I don't have enough time to own more than one system and play through the games.

There are a few third party gems coming out we just don't know when. I think what will end up being the highest quality hard core third party games on the platform will be Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles and No More Heroes. Those games look like they are shaping up pretty well. My hope is that the hard core do not ignore Zack and Wiki all press indicates that it is a thought provoking puzzle adventure game, but it may get overlooked because it is not a game that trades on gore and/or violence. At this point the Wii is my only platform and it treats me just fine. I can understand how that may not be the case for some, but right now I feel my budget will be better served buying games for that system than saving to buy another. As suchI will be buying Madden on Wii it will have all the features of its cousins and I enjoyed the control scheme of the previous Wii Madden, also I will be picking up GHIII on it too.

As for Pickmin being the last shot Nintendo took at innovation in a hard core space I would have to say that that honor should have gone to Battalion Wars. IT was an interesting take on strategy and third person shooting and I can not wait to see the sequel on Wii this October.

As for how well third parties can do, well both Red Steel and Raving Rabbids either came close to or broke one Mil in sales. I think third parties can do fine, if they put out quality product. The fact is third parties (caught with their pants down due to doubt) have rushed to shovel something onto the platform. I think marketing is a bigger part of the picture than people realize. I have a friend who plays a lot of games, but does not listen to podcasts or visit the popular review sites. He plays what he sees advertised on TV and owned a PS2 because all the ads showed the PS2 box and that told him which platform had games available. I looked around and found this is the case for most people (my brother in law, other friends etc). I am now seeing third parties advertise their games on the Nintendo platform which may result in better gains, but time will ultimately tell.

-OMG

I only own a Wii.

trip1eX wrote:

And since when doesn't install base matter? I mean come on. You know in general and for every platform afaik, install base equates to more software sales. Maybe that will change this generation, but I doubt it.

install base DOESNT matter if that install base doesn't buy software.

if 20 million people buy the system, and 15 million of them only ever use it to play Wii Sports and never buy another game, then it makes less sense to develop 3rd party games for that system. That's all I'm saying.

Like I said, I just want to see some sales figures as to what all these people who own a system are doing. Maybe they ARE buying millions of games, I don't know.

Mordiceius wrote:

I only own a Wii.

You game on a PC, don't you?
Don't worry, so do I. I take great pleasure in having a Wii to complement my plethora of hardcore PC games. I'm all for Nintendo "abandoning" me, I can't wait for Wii fit. Just so long as Nintendo isn't sending physical agents to my house to rip the mouse and keyboard out of my hand while I'm playing Bioshock, it's all good in the hood.

I didn't see it thus far in the thread, but what's our working definition of "Hardcore"? Are we going by playtime per week, or by "Only liking Gears of War and Halo"?

SommerMatt, it's called attach rate - i.e. the number of games that are bought per console (on average). If you do a google search for the term coupled with Wii (or any other console) you will pull up numbers for them from news articles.

http://www.n4g.com/ps3/News-30100.aspx

Here's one for example. The Wii is doing pretty well for attach rate. The 360 is winning in attach rates though that has many more games out and has been out much longer. I don't think they count downloads but i'd be astonished if the Wii's VC isn't doing very well in terms of profitability.

With regards to 3rd party publishers the real problem has always been that Nintendo do not court them. They don't help much with advertising or developing (e.g. tools etc) in comparison with the other two. This was always offset by the fact that the NES and SNES were leaders in the home console market. If a game wasn't released on those platforms then you were missing out on 50% of the market. This stopped with the N64 as the Playstation was released with cheaper games and (i think) a cheaper console, the install base quickly outnumbered the N64. This meant that publishers no longer bothered to port or release many game on the N64 due to this.
The bottom of the dip occurred during the GameCube years because there had been little support before it's release for Nintendo no publishers were geared towards their developing environment - why change when SONY was willing to co-advertise etc. even if the PS2 was harder to code for? The install base also had a large say in it.
Hopefully (though it is not yet apparent) Nintendo learned from this long mistake and have actively been spending time (and money) encouraging third party developers to release on their platforms. Microsoft had already realised this problem with the original xbox and really went out of their way to encourage people to develop games for them and again for the 360... but SONY seems to been inbetween the philosophy of the other two, partially encouraging releases and partially just sitting back on their laurels and presuming that because the PS2 was big that the PS3 will be too and so publishers will release on the PS3. They're almost pulling a Nintendo.

Who on this board has a Wii as their only system?

As has been correctly ascertained by Dysplastic, most people who have a Wii only will also have a PC. Therefore it will not be the only system. Not only that but many children (and middle-aged people) have handhelds. They also count. I was shocked to see that my cousins each have a PSP... their parents aren't that rich either!

Saying that ZELDA sells on a Nintendo system is a no brainer I mean, that's my point... first party games sell and always will sell. People buy Nintendo hardware for the specific purpose of playing Nintendo software. As for RED STEEL... I haven't seen the sales figures, but again, launch games ALWAYS sell pretty well, because they're the only thing available. It's how well the other 3rd party games sell that will determine whether the platform will have long term "legs."

You're misinterpreting the power of a franchise. Zelda would sell just as many copies on another platform. Same way that people have always bought Final Fantasys... Dooms.... unreal (various incarnations)... Megaman. It's not the platform that defines the sales of the game, once the franchise is developed and there is a large install base of interested parties then the majority of those parties will enjoy the franchise in whatever form they can until the quality of the franchise is diluted enough to not be a driving force any longer.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

I didn't see it thus far in the thread, but what's our working definition of "Hardcore"? Are we going by playtime per week, or by "Only liking Gears of War and Halo"?

I'd include playtime, how much you're willing to spend on a system, whether you consider achievement points to mean something, whether you need to buy a game on the day it's released or face suffering panic attacks. People who got to game, man.

Also, if the person at Gamestop knows your first name- you are hardcore.

Funkenpants wrote:

Also, if the person at Gamestop knows you're first name- you are hardcore.

Or their dupe