Reports of Sony's imminent demise were greatly exaggerated . . .

[knave]

PC is not dead, not even close...but there is a difference in style when playing games on a computer vs playing on a console.  There will always be great PC games...and some of them might be ported to the consoles but they will still be a different experience.

Any FPS or RTS can be played on a console but the play is much, much different on the PC (better in my opinion.)  The best Graphics and most storage will be on PC (and will be expensive) and network/online play is still better. (Xbox live does a pretty good job of it though)

I have been into PC games since there were computers. Though I wouldn't call myself hardcore. I really like consoles too but not as much as PC's.  I bought a Wii because I want to play games with my kids.  The wii is perfect for that and my kids love it. While we might not play it every day I love the fact that I only paid $200 for it to sit idle and not the higher 360 or PS3 prices.

I wasn't in the market for a Console but the Wii was unique enough to earn a spot with us.  Overall the wii has it's own market that overlaps that of the other more hardcore consoles.  For me I'm happy with my PC and orange box which I will probably play for the next six months to a year, with the odd wii session thrown in. This is all on top of my ever increasing passion for pacman and other arcade games.

[ahofle]

I meant that the the type of gamers that will buy a PS3 or 360 will not buy a Wii instead. A "gamer" isn't going to sit there pondering whether they should be getting a Wii or a 360. They are getting the 360, and pondering whether or not they should be getting a Wii also.

I am that type of gamer (bought Unreal Tournament 3 for PC the day it came out) but I will most likely not buy a PS3 or 360 in addition to my Wii either.  For me, the Wii is to play games and genres that are not really playable on a PC, as well as for playing games with my family or friends or at parties.  Anything else I pretty much play on my PC.  Why on earth would anyone want to play a Bioshock, COD4, or UT3 with a gamepad anyway?   

[shmokes]

To be honest it's not all that different from the previous couple generations.  Nintendo software has been bar far the biggest reason to pick up a Nintendo system.  I got the N64 at launch and bought a Playstation years later.  I bought a Gamecube at launch and got an Xbox at least a year or two later.  I got a Wii a month after launch and expect to get a PS3 (or if I'm wrong and PS3 fails than a 360) in maybe 2009.  I always get Nintendo systems first because I'm a Nintendo whore.  In both of the last two generations (especially the last one) the competition had a stronger library of games, but you had to have a Nintendo system to play Nintendo games.  This generation will be no different in that respect.  Actually, it will be different inasmuch as Nintendo doesn't get the benefit of multiplatform games anymore since their system is too weak to run any of the games coming out for the other two systems.

[versapak]

I meant that the the type of gamers that will buy a PS3 or 360 will not buy a Wii instead. A "gamer" isn't going to sit there pondering whether they should be getting a Wii or a 360. They are getting the 360, and pondering whether or not they should be getting a Wii also.

I am that type of gamer (bought Unreal Tournament 3 for PC the day it came out) but I will most likely not buy a PS3 or 360 in addition to my Wii either.  For me, the Wii is to play games and genres that are not really playable on a PC, as well as for playing games with my family or friends or at parties.  Anything else I pretty much play on my PC.  Why on earth would anyone want to play a Bioshock, COD4, or UT3 with a gamepad anyway?   

Ok....


That is no different than what I said.

You substitute PC for PS3 or 360. What's the difference?

The point is that the Wii will not be your primary platform. It is a supplement.

[ahofle]

I guess I don't understand your point then.  Me (and at least a dozen other people I know) buying a Wii and not a PS3 is not doing anything to help Sony's sale figures compared to Nintendo's.  If it were the 360 or PS3 that caught my eye at the right time (or if the Wii was released as a conventional console with a gamepad), I would very likely have chosen a 360 or PS3 instead.  How is the Wii not in competition with the PS3?

[versapak]

I guess I don't understand your point then.  Me (and at least a dozen other people I know) buying a Wii and not a PS3 is not doing anything to help Sony's sale figures compared to Nintendo's.  If it were the 360 or PS3 that caught my eye at the right time (or if the Wii was released as a conventional console with a gamepad), I would very likely have chosen a 360 or PS3 instead.  How is the Wii not in competition with the PS3?

My point was nothing more than what I said. The Wii is not in direct competition with the PS3 or 360.

People buy 360s and PS3s for the same reason you have your PC.

I have no problem using a gamepad for my FPS controls, and don't really feel any burning desire to get into a console gamer vs pc gamer sort of debate. It is what it is.

"Gamers" aren't going to have a Wii as the primary gaming platform. That will be a PS3, 360 or PC.

My initial statement of the Wii being secondary system in the first place was just to say that its success doesn't have much bearing at all on Sony's possibilities in this generations market. It is between MS and Sony, while Nintendo is in a totally different happy place all by itself.

[ahofle]

You're basically saying that neither I, nor any non-"hardcore" console gamer could ever possibly buy a non-Wii system which is nonsense.  Had I stumbled upon a friend's PS3 and played Rock Band (or some other great non-Wii game that appealed to me) before I could have just as easily made the PS3 my system and gotten a free BluRay player as a side effect. 

I'm sure your point would go over well in the Sony boardroom.
"Ladies and gentlemen, as you can see from this slide, our sales are horribly below the Wii -- however if you look at figure 11.8, you will see that we are leaders in the 'h4rdc0r3 g4m3r' demographic which is all that matters for the future of our PS3 division." 

[DaveMMR]

The PS3 is not in direct competition with the Wii, but that, in fact, was one of Sony's big mistakes.  Sony should have been gunning for Nintendo from the get go.  For two generations Sony knocked the former champion off its perch into the bottom position.  They could have put the final nail in the coffin in this generation.  Instead, they decided to switch gears and create a needlessly expensive system that appeals only to the super-dedicated gamer.  So now Nintendo, their non-competitor is raking in the dough while Sony's game division is hemorrhaging profits.  Stockholders and third-party software developers don't want to hear how powerful the PS3 is anymore when the systems aren't selling.

[slycrel]

Versa, I will say that there is one person reading this thread who is the exact counterpoint to your argument.  Me.  I've chosen between the 360, ps3 and the wii.  I purchased a wii.  Would I like one of the other systems?  Sure.  Does that make me a non-gamer because I don't use the PS3, 360 or PC as my primary gaming platform?  I guess that's what is being discussed...  I don't believe that it does.

Maybe then, by your definition, I am not a "gamer".  (hardcore or otherwise)  I disagree, as I think many would.  Sure, there are a lot of "gamers" that will have either a ps3 or a 360 and that's the big choice.  There's also a segment of the market out there that is choosing the wii over the other 2 consoles as well.  For whatever reason people in this thread want you to make that concession instead of just drawing the line at gamer vs non-gamer with anything other than the wii as proof.

Personally, I don't care what you want to call it.  =)  I'm happy with what I got, and I don't really care who "wins" this generation.  There's lots to choose from when purchasing this time around, which is only a good thing.

[versapak]

Versa, I will say that there is one person reading this thread who is the exact counterpoint to your argument.  Me.  I've chosen between the 360, ps3 and the wii.  I purchased a wii.  Would I like one of the other systems?  Sure.  Does that make me a non-gamer because I don't use the PS3, 360 or PC as my primary gaming platform?  I guess that's what is being discussed...  I don't believe that it does.

Maybe then, by your definition, I am not a "gamer".  (hardcore or otherwise)  I disagree, as I think many would.  Sure, there are a lot of "gamers" that will have either a ps3 or a 360 and that's the big choice.  There's also a segment of the market out there that is choosing the wii over the other 2 consoles as well.  For whatever reason people in this thread want you to make that concession instead of just drawing the line at gamer vs non-gamer with anything other than the wii as proof.

Personally, I don't care what you want to call it.  =)  I'm happy with what I got, and I don't really care who "wins" this generation.  There's lots to choose from when purchasing this time around, which is only a good thing.

Of course people that buy a Wii are gamers. All it does is play games after all.


I guess I would say that you are not a hardcore gamer though, if the Wii was your choice for a primary gaming machine (and by gaming machine I don't mean just consoles but PC as well).


I would say that you are probably not a person that buys tons of console games, and spends tons of time playing them.

Heck I could be wrong though, and I certainly don't mean to speak in absolutes here. I have no scientific proof. I haven't done any proper polling.

I just look at the game library for the Wii, and go off my own and friends experience owning one.

The Wii is fun. The controls to lend to some interesting and fun gameplay. The experience isn't so great though, that traditional gaming and controls get tossed out the window.

If you can look at games like Orange Box, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and say that you don't really care that you won't be playing them, then yeah... You are not a hardcore gamer.

The big games will still appear on the more powerful traditional consoles, and if you are a hardcore gamer, those are games you will want. The Wii doesn't compete at all for that market share.


As for what DaveMMR said...

I don't think they should ignore that demographic that the Wii is tapping into, but that demographic isn't going to be buying a $400+ game system anyway, and the software attach rate they provide isn't very high. Software attach rate obviously being very important to a system that loses money on the hardware.

In order to compete in the market that Nintendo went for, they would have had to sacrifice all the power, and going back to earlier in this post...

Those new controls are fun, but they aren't fun enough to scrap traditional gaming altogether.

[slycrel]

You need to look at my avatar.  I'm not skipping out on the orange box at least.  =)

I guess you could say that I am a recovering hardcore gamer.  Just a few months ago I played WoW 25+ hours a week in addition to other games.  I pre-ordered the orange box for the PC and was playing TF2 as soon as the closed beta began for people who pre-ordered.  In the past I've been even more devoted.   I've done programming for games and helped in the creation of mods.

What it comes down to, for me, is that yes, I don't have tons of extra time to be playing games right now.  I can comfortably fit between 10 and 15 hours of gaming in a week without that coming at the expense of the rest of my life.  I may not be super hardcore right now, but I'm solidly a gamer.  At this point I'm choosing the wii over a 360 and ps3.  And the wii really is my primary gaming machine.

I don't believe I am alone out there with this choice.  Don't dismiss this segment of the market.  That's all people are saying.

[tommy]

For two generations Sony knocked the former champion off its perch into the bottom position.  They could have put the final nail in the coffin in this generation.  Instead, they decided to switch gears and create a needlessly expensive system that appeals only to the super-dedicated gamer. 

Personally, I would have thought people were ready for that super console and ready to spend crazy cash on it. Look how much some of these fancy laptops are going for that people have no problem buying, some of them are going for over 5 grand and they have no problem selling them.

I would have thought gamers and the market were calling for the best possible console that could be made and if it was expensive, so what. I think Sony thought so too.

Gaming sales have gone up and up and up the last few years and it would stand to reason that putting the strongest console on the market would have no problem selling. People want the best and call for the best but when it comes time to pay for the best, the settle for the rest, that screwed Sony.
 
Microsoft was the smartest this generation. Having your system the only one out here to choose from makes you a lot of money and makes people who want to buy a console not have to think about what one to get. To me, the only way all these console makers are going to make any real cash is to not all come out at the same time, but come out at least 1 year apart from the others to where there is only one new console out at the time and that is yours.

[versapak]

You need to look at my avatar.  I'm not skipping out on the orange box at least.  =)

I guess you could say that I am a recovering hardcore gamer.  Just a few months ago I played WoW 25+ hours a week in addition to other games.  I pre-ordered the orange box for the PC and was playing TF2 as soon as the closed beta began for people who pre-ordered.  In the past I've been even more devoted.   I've done programming for games and helped in the creation of mods.

What it comes down to, for me, is that yes, I don't have tons of extra time to be playing games right now.  I can comfortably fit between 10 and 15 hours of gaming in a week without that coming at the expense of the rest of my life.  I may not be super hardcore right now, but I'm solidly a gamer.  At this point I'm choosing the wii over a 360 and ps3.  And the wii really is my primary gaming machine.

I don't believe I am alone out there with this choice.  Don't dismiss this segment of the market.  That's all people are saying.

It sounds like you are saying that the Wii is your choice so that you play less games, which only further proves my point.


You do still have your PC though, and I would still be willing to bet that it does see more game time than your Wii will.

[ChadTower]

I guess I would say that you are not a hardcore gamer though, if the Wii was your choice for a primary gaming machine (and by gaming machine I don't mean just consoles but PC as well).

I'm not sure if I'm offended by this.  I think that depends on how he defines "hardcore gamer".

I would say that you are probably not a person that buys tons of console games, and spends tons of time playing them.

I own every domestic console except the PS3 and 360.  Some of them I have in stacks and for some I own a percentage of the library approaching 100%... hell I do have 100% for one of them (though that's the Virtual Boy  ).

If you can look at games like Orange Box, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and say that you don't really care that you won't be playing them, then yeah... You are not a hardcore gamer.

So that's his definition.... hardcore gamer = fan of violent games.

That is the difference.  I am as much a gamer as anyone but I just don't bother with those games.  I see the 360 as a system primarily for the online play of violent games that don't appeal to me.  I see the PS3 as a system primarily for fans of HD eye candy.  That doesn't matter to me much either.  Having experienced pretty much everything video gaming has to offer, I've settled on the fun and probably moreso the zen of Nintendo first party games.  That doesn't make me less of a gamer - it makes me someone who wants to chill, not kill.

[ClubNinja]

If you can look at games like Orange Box...

So that's his definition.... hardcore gamer = fan of violent games.

I bought Orange Box almost exclusively for the included Portal, which is both non-violent and an absolute must-play.  Of course it doesn't justify the entire platform, but it's an example of the really good non-killing content available for the 360 and PS3 (content which makes up the majority of my libraries for both of those machines).

[ChadTower]

Looking at Portal on Wikipedia, it does look pretty cool... and knowing your familiarity with my preferences, I'll have to find a way to play this.  Wikipedia says it is available without the other games via Steam.  I try hard to avoid PC gaming because I sit all day at a PC but exceptions are sometimes made.

[versapak]

I give up.


No I don't define hardcore gamer as player of violent games, those just happen to be the big titles of the last few months on 360 (my primary gaming platform and the freshest games on my mind). Go figure.

I think Zelda, Metroid, and Mario fit nicely into that definition also.

The problem is that those are all Nintendo games, and as far as the Wii goes, I'd happily bet that like the last 2 generations, Nintendo titles will be the bulk of the "games to play" on the Wii.

My definition of a hardcore gamer is that you wouldn't be satisfied with just that.

I don't mean to imply at all that hardcore gamers don't own Wii's. There is just no way I can see that as the primary gaming platform of a hardcore gamer. One of the platforms they choose to game on yes, but not their primary. There just won't be enough substance to its library of games.

I'd love to be proven wrong on that, but there is nothing in history to suggest that I will be.




[EDIT]

For the record... Portal is THE reason to own Orange Box.


What an awesome experience.

[knave]

Looking at Portal on Wikipedia, it does look pretty cool... and knowing your familiarity with my preferences, I'll have to find a way to play this.  Wikipedia says it is available without the other games via Steam.  I try hard to avoid PC gaming because I sit all day at a PC but exceptions are sometimes made.

Speaking of nonviolent games, you all need to try Peggle.

I know it sounds too fuzzy and warm to be fun but of all the nonsensical games I've played on any platform it was the most addictively fun.  Give it a try you won't be sorry. This game completely took over the PC Gamer staff playtime for weeks because it's so fun.

Enough...

The Wii is competing with the other consoles in that lots of gamers are only going to choose one console. They may fall somewhere in between hardcore and casual. PC is  a platform but is not really comparable.  My home PC is also a tool. I pay bills, do homework, read news, email, pictures, watch TV and other videos, go shopping, etc...
As a add on bonus I get to play cool games on it and have for a long time...

Really I'm a hardcore PC gamer who got married, had kids and wants to find balance in my activities. I no longer have the time (I choose to focus less time on games) to play all the cool games so I pick the best two or three and play those. I still somehow put in hundreds of hours into Battlefield 2. and Halflife2/counterstrike...heck since I've found this forum I probably have a good  number of hours at my PC trying out games on Mame.

Anyway I'm not so sure the definitions of gamer are so easily defined.

[slycrel]

Versa, I think that in some way, shape or form you're defining hardcore gamer as one who is spending large amounts of time and/or money with games in general.

I used to be that guy.

I'm with knave.  I have other competing priorities right now.  I only have so much time for games because I choose to have a multi-faceted life.  Not because I don't want to game or am not interested in gaming.

And I also agree with Chad.  Because of the time investments involved I'm pretty picky about what I spend my time on.  Right now I've chosen the Wii because, as a gamer that's played a ton of the types of games that are out there, the wii has some of the nostalgia of the older system, but more importantly some of the "new" concepts that I want to explore as a gamer.  I've already explored the majority of gameplay types more or less to death that are around with the 360 and PS3.  I want something new.  Sure, incremental updates and changes are nice, and very groundbreaking for some people.  But the wii brings a whole new dimension of gameplay to the table.  Maybe it's just me, but the wii seems to be more socially involved, leading to my entire family enjoying themselves, not just me stuck in a headset playing online.  There's become a big difference there, and frankly I enjoy it more.  That's why LAN parties are so fun -- it's social as well as gaming.

I don't think I'm less of a gamer because my gameplay styles have changed.  I'm not a teen or college kid who has oodles of time or money to devote anymore.  I've got to be a lot more careful with my entertainment time and dollars.

Anyhow, I'm thinking we are arguing semantics at this point, apologies, I try not to do that.  =)

Edit:

Portal is the best game I've played probably in years.  Entertaining, interesting story, interesting gameplay, all the essential pieces of a classic game that will not soon be forgotten.  Oh yeah, and a cool credits song. 

[shmokes]

All this nonsense about the Wii not competing with the PS3 and 360 makes me laugh.  It's a ridiculous notion.  Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera are competitors, regardless of the fact that a large number of consumers will own the albums of both artists.

Developers/publishers spend a finite amount of dollars on videogame development.  The amount they divvy out to Nintendo's systems depends exclusively on Nintendo's competitive advantage over Sony and MS.  Additionally, people who make this crazy assertion act like competition ends the moment a hardware decision ends.  It doesn't, of course.  An owner of both a PS3 and a Wii makes a decision between the two systems every time he turns one on.  He makes a decision between the two when he goes to the store with $60 to purchase a game.  When Halo 3 and Mario Galaxy are both released at almost the same time, an owner of both a 360 and a Wii, who can only afford one game, has to choose who gets his money.  Nintendo competes for the mindshare and marketshare of gamers just like MS and Sony, and every minute that an Xbox 360 is being played is a minute of a gamer's time that Nintendo was unable to capitalize on.

Additionally, as Shardian pointed out a long time ago, a lot of systems (about half for non-Nintendo systems) are purchased by parents for kids.  Shardian's parents were not about to buy him another videogame console from the same generation of systems after they had already bought him another.  My parents were the same (largely because we were dirt poor).  When you've got a bunch of elementary/junior high/high school kids begging their parents for a Wii for Christmas, those kids are not getting a 360 or PS3 at least until their birthday or next Christmas, if at all. 

Nintendo IS NOT sitting on some brand new market with no competitors.  That's seriously ridiculous.  If you buy into it, you are merely buying into the marketing ---smurf-poop--- that Reggie Fils Aime is feeding you. 

[shmokes]

I used to be that guy. . . . I have other competing priorities right now.  I only have so much time for games because I choose to have a multi-faceted life.  Not because I don't want to game or am not interested in gaming.

In this regard, I'm with Versa.  You simply aren't a hardcore gamer anymore.  A hardcore skier who shatters his leg in an accident and can't ski anything like he used to isn't a hardcore skier anymore.  He's just a skier who used to be hardcore.  I too spend almost no time playing videogames anymore.  I'm a full-time law student with a 17-month old baby girl.  I get in maybe 3-5 hours of gaming per month lately.  Sad.  But I can't tell people that I'm a hardcore gamer, and proceed to tell them that I haven't played any of the latest and greatest, even if I'd really like to play those games given the opportunity.  Wishing he could still ski the way he used to is not enough to maintain the hardcore skier label.

[ChadTower]

I love how his analogy to having a 17 month old baby is a broken leg and permanent loss of ability.      

[versapak]

All this nonsense about the Wii not competing with the PS3 and 360 makes me laugh.  It's a ridiculous notion.  Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera are competitors, regardless of the fact that a large number of consumers will own the albums of both artists.

They are both the exact same genre of music though.


Do you think Britney Spears at all competes for or hurts the sales of Metallica?


Of course they compete in a way. Sony and MS no doubt want that market also, and yeah there are people out there that maybe would have bought a PS3 or 360 if the Wii didn't exist, but I don't think that is a huge chunk of the market.

Time will tell if I am wrong, but right now software attach rates are proving otherwise.

[tommy]

You try to tell all the decades of kids turned adults who have supported and bought every single Zelda and Mario game to ever hit store shelves that they are not hardcore gamers.

If Nintendo did not exist then this profit would be Xbox's profit or Sony's. They are definitely taking profit away and are in competition.

[ahofle]

Do you think Britney Spears at all competes for or hurts the sales of Metallica?

Please tell me the Wii isn't "Britney Spears" in this analogy. 

[AtomSmasher]

Well I believe I can still be considered a hardcore gamer, I don't play as much as I used to, but I still play around 20 hours a week gaming and I buy a minimum of one new game a month (usually I get several more then one a month).  Some of the recent games I've played have been the Orange Box, Bioshock, Crysis, Tabla Rasa, Hellgate: London, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Final Fantasy XII (I never like earlier FF games, so I waited until it hit $20 before getting it) and Resident Evil 4 (for the Wii, and yes the controls are much better then the GC version).

I admit the PC is my gaming system of choice, but I generally have one current gen console to play on as well.  If the Wii was not an option, then I would of bought a PS3 or a 360, so I can definately say that for this gamer, the Wii took sales from the other two consoles.

*edit* I should probably mention which consoles I own instead of making you figure it out from the game list.  I have a PC, a PS2, and a Wii.

[versapak]

You try to tell all the decades of kids turned adults who have supported and bought every single Zelda and Mario game to ever hit store shelves that they are not hardcore gamers.

Learn to read.

I never said anything to the contrary.

If Nintendo did not exist then this profit would be Xbox's profit or Sony's. They are definitely taking profit away and are in competition.

The whole point of the Wii is to tap into a market not held by traditional gaming, so no... That profit wouldn't be MS's or Sony's.

I have already stated that yeah, there is probably some sales loss from casual gamers that may have eventually chosen to get a 360 or PS3 if the Wii didn't exist, but I don't think it is that big of a loss. Only time will tell.

[versapak]

Do you think Britney Spears at all competes for or hurts the sales of Metallica?

Please tell me the Wii isn't "Britney Spears" in this analogy. 

Well... In the pre-trailor trash junkie days.

[versapak]

I admit the PC is my gaming system of choice, but I generally have one current gen console to play on as well.  If the Wii was not an option, then I would of bought a PS3 or a 360, so I can definately say that for this gamer, the Wii took a sale from the other two.

Fair enough.

As I stated earlier. I certainly don't mean to speak in absolutes. There are exceptions.

Though I doubt they lost that much in sales to your decision to get a Wii. Nintendo games FTW!

[slycrel]

I used to be that guy. . . . I have other competing priorities right now.  I only have so much time for games because I choose to have a multi-faceted life.  Not because I don't want to game or am not interested in gaming.

In this regard, I'm with Versa.  You simply aren't a hardcore gamer anymore.  A hardcore skier who shatters his leg in an accident and can't ski anything like he used to isn't a hardcore skier anymore.  He's just a skier who used to be hardcore.  I too spend almost no time playing videogames anymore.  I'm a full-time law student with a 17-month old baby girl.  I get in maybe 3-5 hours of gaming per month lately.  Sad.  But I can't tell people that I'm a hardcore gamer, and proceed to tell them that I haven't played any of the latest and greatest, even if I'd really like to play those games given the opportunity.  Wishing he could still ski the way he used to is not enough to maintain the hardcore skier label.

But in your example the skiier with the shattered leg doesn't have the option to ski anymore.  If I wanted to I could still be a "hardcore gamer".  There's a difference between choosing not to and not being able to do something.  The result may be the same, but there's a large difference.  To illustrate this point...  let's say person A is banned from playing xbox live.  Person B decides not to subscribe to xbox live.  The result is the same -- they both can't play on xbox live.  However once person has a choice, the other person does not.  Person B can still try to gain access, for example at person A's house or whatever, but fundamentally they have lost options where the other person has not.

So, in your example...  If an olympic medalist skiier chose to not ski as a primary purpose in life, but still kept up with the skiing world and still would ski on a regular basis what would that make them?  Hardcore or not hardcore?  Is the definition of hardcore simply a measure of time devoted to a topic/idea/game/whatever or is it something more?  There's the semantics coming out again.  My definition differs here from yours, and that's fine...  I'm just trying to get the message across that there are differing definitions.

The distinction that is being made here is either you are or you aren't, with the implication that if your primary gaming platform is the wii you aren't.  I'm not sure it's that simple, that's all I'm getting at.

(Wow, 4 replies posted since I started writing this...    )

[AtomSmasher]

Though I doubt they lost that much in sales to your decision to get a Wii. Nintendo games FTW!

Huh?  The nintendo games are the best games on the Wii, so its not exactly a surprise that I would get them.  If you believe that I may be a Nintendo fanboy, the Wii is the first Nintendo console I've owned since the original NES (excluding handhelds).  If I didn't have a Wii, then you can believe that I would of had pretty much every high end game on the 360 (as of right now, I would buy a 360 over a ps3).

*edit* Thinking about it, my older sister is actually the one who bought our family's NES, so I guess the Wii is technically the first Nintendo console I've ever owned (once again, excluding handhelds).

[tommy]

You try to tell all the decades of kids turned adults who have supported and bought every single Zelda and Mario game to ever hit store shelves that they are not hardcore gamers.

Learn to read.

I never said anything to the contrary.

Zelda, Metroid, and Mario fit nicely into that definition also.

My definition of a hardcore gamer is that you wouldn't be satisfied with just that.

 

[EDIT]

For the record... Portal is THE reason to own Orange Box.

You obviously never played HL2, HL2DM or TF2. Portal is good but is very short and is not alone worth buying the orange box.

[ChadTower]

The tommyfins just won their first game!  They won't go 0-16!   

[tommy]

The tommyfins just won their first game!  They won't go 0-16!   

Oh, I've won a ton more, it's just that no one here is willing to admit it. 

[versapak]

You try to tell all the decades of kids turned adults who have supported and bought every single Zelda and Mario game to ever hit store shelves that they are not hardcore gamers.

Learn to read.

I never said anything to the contrary.

Zelda, Metroid, and Mario fit nicely into that definition also.

My definition of a hardcore gamer is that you wouldn't be satisfied with just that.

 

[EDIT]

For the record... Portal is THE reason to own Orange Box.

You obviously never played HL2, HL2DM or TF2. Portal is good but is very short and is not alone worth buying the orange box.

I have Orange Box, and I love all the games on it. I don't mean that you should buy Orange Box only expecting to play Portal, but that it should maybe be the first thing you play, because it is that darn good.


I never said that people that play Zelda & Mario couldn't be hardcore gamers. I said the exact opposite. There isn't enough of those released regularly to say you are a hardcore gamer based on playing those alone though, and Nintendo doesn't have the quality 3rd party support that it had way back in the day when I grew up playing Zelda and Mario. You will miss out on whole heck of a lot more with only a Wii than you would have back in the day with only a SNES.

I guess if someone does indeed play the Wii for hours a day though, then yeah they are a hardcore gamer, but I personally don't see enough quality games on the Wii that will have anyone doing that for more than the traditional honeymoon period. The novelty of that controller does wear off, and 3rd parties aren't really doing anything worthwhile on the Wii. That did change on the DS though, so whatever...

It doesn't matter what I say, or even if I am wrong in saying it. Other than my dollars spent I have no impact on the market, and only time will tell if the Wii is the little engine that kicked the other engines in the nuts. My prediction is that the Wii will be just like the last 3 Nintendo consoles though.

A platform for Nintendo games.


All I ever meant by that darn not a direct competitor comment, is that I do not see the Wii's success as a being a reason for any Sony failure. For the most part it is a different kind of gaming.

[DaveMMR]

As for what DaveMMR said...

I don't think they should ignore that demographic that the Wii is tapping into, but that demographic isn't going to be buying a $400+ game system anyway, and the software attach rate they provide isn't very high. Software attach rate obviously being very important to a system that loses money on the hardware.

Exactly, Vera.  Nintendo's demographic is not going to spend more than $400 for a system.  And that's the problem.  Playstation 1 launched at $299 and Playstation 2 launched at $299.  Guess which two systems knocked Nintendo to third place.  If Sony stayed the course with Playstation 3 and delivered for the same price (by getting rid of the Blu-Ray, I'm sorry to say), they'd have a threepeat on their hands. 

But now, watch, and you'll see more third party developers are going to scramble right back to Nintendo.  Why?  Because that's who's selling all the systems.  Being in third place IS NOT good for the PS3's library (the same way it wasn't for the Nintendo the last two times out).  It's funny how well programmers can work within the limitations of a system's hardware when there's money to be made.

BTW I'm ignoring all the semantics over the definition of hard-core gamer right now.   

[versapak]

Exactly, Vera.  Nintendo's demographic is not going to spend more than $400 for a system.  And that's the problem.  Playstation 1 launched at $299 and Playstation 2 launched at $299.  Guess which two systems knocked Nintendo to third place.  If Sony stayed the course with Playstation 3 and delivered for the same price (by getting rid of the Blu-Ray, I'm sorry to say), they'd have a threepeat on their hands. 

But now, watch, and you'll see more third party developers are going to scramble right back to Nintendo.  Why?  Because that's who's selling all the systems.  Being in third place IS NOT good for the PS3's library (the same way it wasn't for the Nintendo the last two times out).  It's funny how well programmers can work within the limitations of a system's hardware when there's money to be made.

BTW I'm ignoring all the semantics over the definition of hard-core gamer right now.   

Yeah, you won't ever find me defending the price the PS3 launched at.


I am the kind of person that will buy all 3 of them, and give them all a decent amount of game purchasing support, but Sony definitely pushed me to the side for a while at those prices.

I wouldn't have wanted to see them launch with a last gen machine like the Wii, but there was definitely no need for that Blu-ray inclusion (for gaming consumers anyway, obviously there was need for Sony themselves to do it).

[DaveMMR]

Yeah, you won't ever find me defending the price the PS3 launched at.


I am the kind of person that will buy all 3 of them, and give them all a decent amount of game purchasing support, but Sony definitely pushed me to the side for a while at those prices.

I wouldn't have wanted to see them launch with a last gen machine like the Wii, but there was definitely no need for that Blu-ray inclusion (for gaming consumers anyway, obviously there was need for Sony themselves to do it).

Yeah, I think Sony totally threw their favorite child under the bus to win a format war.  Kind of sad - kind of dopey.

After all is said and done, I'll probably end up with all three by the end of this generation too.   Guess which one I'm buying last.   

[Grasshopper]

Yeah, I think Sony totally threw their favorite child under the bus to win a format war.  Kind of sad - kind of dopey.

It's definitely a very high risk strategy and also shows a lack of respect for gamers (which Sony deserves to be punished for) but it's too early to say whether it's dopey.

If Sony is able to establish Blu Ray as the de facto next gen DVD standard then the long term rewards for the company will be incalculable. I'm guessing that damage to the Playstation brand is a price they are willing to pay in order to achieve that aim. Of course they'd like both the PS3 and Blu Ray to be a success but I'm guessing that Blu Ray is a far higher priority.

However, there is still the possibility they could lose on both fronts in which case their decision to include Blu Ray with the PS3 could indeed end up seeming pretty dumb with the benefit of hindsight.

[shmokes]

Think of the sheer size of Sony, and how long they have been in the electronics business.  Now consider that over half of the company's profits come from the Playstation department and it begins to become clear how foolish it is for them to risk the Playstation business in order to establish BluRay.