Support NeoGAF

[spock]

They are a subset you can rely on. It won't be as easy as Wii Sports in the future. But costs really do slow things down these days I think. There needs to be enough interest from the get go so hopefully we've yet to see the majority of the games that we'll see with the PS4 launch.

The public will get hooked by marketing and showing them appealing new concepts that might not even be that related to gaming or next-gen but starting off with that is risky since it usually hasn't been built up enough by the core fans..

The thing is you dont need a wii sports hit. You can have a wii fit hit, a brain age hit, a nintendogs hit, etc. You can tap into these other spaces in the broad market. Those games show that there are lots of proven potentially profit centers if you can find and hook them.

Edit: I do agree starting out targeting the broad market is risky, but I think its more risky to design your entire console to appeal to the core as your primary driving force. They pretty much boxed themselves in, in regards to what they can do to appeal to the broad market.

 

[dosh]

E3:

Here is the DS4.. Once again... *drops* Oops it broke up in half, or has it?

I would laugh so much.

 

[IrrelevantNotch]

No, it's a short term strategy. They will appeal to the core early, get the userbase up, and the price of components will drop quickly for a variety of reasons (the Durango will use them, they're basically PC parts). Then they can go after the casuals. I'd be worried about a Sony strategy targeting the casuals with even a $399 box, which, being honest, is the lowest any new console was going to come in at for Sony without subsidization.

I want to say it's the Vita strategy except that third parties will actually make games on PS4, and that there is a proven "premium game" console market compared to handhelds.

I'd love to hear these reasons

 

[joeblow]

If you can't see the difference between customers taking their desire to game elsewhere and the industry poisoning the well and leaving gamers without a true option to satisfy their gaming desire like in the 80s, then I don't know what to tell you.

If you can't see the difference between consumers growing tired of 7-8 year old tech ready to move on to a real next gen machine (just like every generation in the past went through after a mere five years), I don't know what to tell you.

Also, its pretty ridiculous to speak of the mobile/tablet market in ways that suggests there is a finite number of gamers at all times. The hobby goes through ups and downs, but generally expands to bring in more gamers. It isn't either/or. Traditional, deep console gaming experiences can exist just fine alongside simplified mobile gaming experiences.

 

[Alias Greed]

Doesn't matter if they die. I love them for thinking of the gamer first, I'll go down swinging with them if they do. (Figuritively speaking).

 

[samman6]

The new consoles need to hit the classic console market, 13-30 year old males, who but COD, Madden, Fifa, GTA. To do this you ned to hit the hardcore gamer who buys things at launch. Whichever console gains the most word of mouth from the core will win the rest of that big male demographic. Think about yourself in the past how many friends did you have that asked you "Hey man should I get PS2 or XBOX?" Then you tell them which one to get and they go buy that one. Our opinion on the machine is worth more then any advertising, if the core sees one machine as "better" that machine usually wins the race. last gen it was xbox 360 that one that title, due to having a year head start, and because 599 happened. This gen it is up for grabs.

 

[Mandoric]

The thing is you dont need a wii sports hit. You can have a wii fit hit, a brain age hit, a nintendogs hit, etc. You can tap into these other spaces in the broad market. Those games show that there are lots of proven potentially profit centers if you can find and hook them.

Edit: I do agree starting out targeting the broad market is risky, but I think its more risky to design your entire console to appeal to the core as your primary driving force. They pretty much boxed themselves in, in regards to what they can do to appeal to the broad market.

We've had the past two or three gens prove that big explosions is one easy-to-target segment of a market that isn't necessarily gaming enthusiasts, and lifelike sports is another. And that's who the power boxes pursue, not some kind of core interested in gaming for gaming's sake.

Why do these guys get the attention? They're the 13-35 male demographic who dump money into hobbies hand-over-fist, they can be reliably hooked with yearly upgrades (compare the amount of people who came back to Madden 13 or Halo 4 to the amount of people that came back to Brain Age 2), and the boxes that satisfy them are technically capable of satisfying everyone else too.

I'd love to hear these reasons

The only expensive part is the RAM, and the RAM is a brand-new density that most high-end capacity will convert to in the near future; there's also methods for producing modules with similar performance even cheaper coming online soon that may or may not be compatible.

Everything else is commodity, and most of the savings have already occured. That $4-$5bn burnt on the PS3 includes something like $1-$2bn of Cell R&D and capacity buildout plus a contract with NVidia for RSX that was basically "oh god take our money and save us we're launching in a year and we have no GPU". This time around, they're going with a slightly reshuffled set of midrange gaming laptops from AMD, who came to the negotiation table desperate for something to keep -them- afloat.

 

[rohlfinator]

Casual gamers aren't "the stars of the show" on mobile devices, either, though. Token support for casual gamers on one side, token support for casual gamers on the other.

Exactly. We all know how Steve Jobs felt about gaming, after all.

It seems like the most defining characteristic (if there is one) of the casual gamer is that they go for the games with the lowest barrier to entry. They play games on Facebook because they already spend time on Facebook. They play games on their phone because it's always with them. They play games on their tablet because it's the most accessible computing device to use around the house.

There's money to be tapped in that audience, but I really don't see how any dedicated set-top box can compete in that space.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

The "core gamer" market is pretty massive. PS3/360 sales combined are probably around 160 million by now. I'd argue that less than 10% of those are from truly "casual" gamers that only care about Kinect or Move and have no interest in core experiences.

So you're looking at an audience of 150 million that care about core experiences (CoD, Madden, etc).

Sony's goal is to get these core gamers back from Microsoft (which has split their market share in half), that's what their gamble is. Microsoft's gamble is that, "yeah, we'll retain our core, and also expand to new audiences". We'll see what works. I'm skeptical that there are some new audiences out there looking to buy a new Xbox just because it has a DVR built into it and don't care as much about the core experience.

 

[grumble]

Exactly. We all know how Steve Jobs felt about gaming, after all.

It seems like the most defining characteristic (if there is one) of the casual gamer is that they go for the games with the lowest barrier to entry. They play games on Facebook because they already spend time on Facebook. They play games on their phone because it's always with them. They play games on their tablet because it's the most accessible computing device to use around the house.

There's money to be tapped in that audience, but I really don't see how any dedicated set-top box can compete in that space.

It can compete in that space if it reduces the time to fun down to near zero. Loading screens, boot time, operating system clumsiness for the non-tech crowd, an annoying purchase process relative to say iTunes... This stuff can get fixed so casual gamers looking for more immediate fun can get it as easily as turning the tv on. That was a big selling point of the wii for some; as soon as you started a game it was usually fun and painless

 

[ThisWreckage]

The core gamer market is pretty large and they buy the most software. They're also instrumental in building a user base because they're day one customers that are loyal.

 

[rohlfinator]

It can compete in that space if it reduces the time to fun down to near zero. Loading screens, boot time, operating system clumsiness for the non-tech crowd, an annoying purchase process relative to say iTunes... This stuff can get fixed so casual gamers looking for more immediate fun can get it as easily as turning the tv on. That was a big selling point of the wii for some; as soon as you started a game it was usually fun and painless

Those things can't hurt, but I don't think they're going to get a Facebook/iOS gamer to go out and drop $300-500 on a dedicated console.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

Those things can't hurt, but I don't think they're going to get a Facebook/iOS gamer to go out and drop $300-500 on a dedicated console.

Which is why it's smart that Sony is pushing for core gaming gamers (I just made myself vomit with those words) first and foremost; the people who will drop $300-500 on a dedicated console. The casuals will come flocking for Move Dance Party 13 X-Tra Trax when the system hits $200.

 

[Tyrax]

Just because they haven't talked about going big on entertainment services yet, doesn't mean that they are not going to do it.

I'm just worried that the high system specs will make the console big and loud.

 

[krazen]

Ill throw this out there; people forget that while the casual audience is fickle, the hardcore gamer audience is EXPANDING.

Us old folks arent hanging up the controllers anytime soon into our 30's, 40's, 50's and even 60's, and those 12 year olds weaned on Wii's are going to want something more substantial to play.

As much as people disparage bro-gamers, they ARE a segment of the hardcore and until you can get a great version of COD on a tablet/smartphone to sweve them they will always flock to consoles.

 

[M3d10n]

I really think this is a poor strategy. Sony isn't so talented that they can expect to win the casuals by treating them as a secondary objective when other talented companies (some considerably more talented than Sony) make casual gamers their primary objective, focusing all of their gaming efforts on them.

Again, the PS2 won the casuals in an age when there were essentially no platforms which catered to casuals first and foremost. Now there are several which come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and prices.

Sure, it's possible Sony will pull it out anyway. But I don't think it's likely, and it isn't a gamble I would take.

Casuals game... casually. Nowadays they can stumble upon games on their phones, tablets and even computers. Making a console that appeals to them is a gigantic challenge. Nintendo did this, made tons of money on it, but the compromises they had to do in order to get there cost them the ability to capture the core gamers.

There's no gimmick on earth that would make casuals shell $400 for Sony's console. And to make a $200 console, they'd need to burn some bridges and risk losing the "few" casuals that are almost guaranteed to buy their console in exchange for a "potential" amount of casuals that may or may not buy the thing.

 

[P90]

"true" gamers, i.e. gamers that will buy gaming systems at near any price are exactly what Sony needs to start off with. After a period of time when sales start slipping, then a price cut to lure in "value" gamers is the call of duty.

 

[Rpgmonkey]

I think their idea is sound, but it'll be interesting to see how it turns out in the long term.

If we're talking 2-4 years from now, a person's other options besides a PS4 will increase in number, and also hit better price points and gain more functionality and accessibility alongside the PS4. I can see the PS4 doing OK within a certain group of consumers that will mostly be there in the earlier years, but I feel its ability to greatly expand beyond that group is harder to predict, as grabbing the enthusiasm, time, and money people can or will put towards the other gadgets and activities out there becomes a more difficult (and expensive?) task to accomplish.

 

[ZoddGutts]

Those casual gamers are long gone, they've moved on too tablets/smartphones. The sales of the Wii after 3 1/2 years and the current situation with the WiiU proves this. Good move on Sony's part that they didn't follow Nintendo's route (WiiU) with the console. What Sony is trying to do is get that 360 audience of hardcore gamers, those gamers that they had during the PS2 days but lost with the PS3. That's the audience that there trying to get.

 

[rudieboy77]

What is a true gamer? Sounds like a title of exclusivity, exclusivity (generally) means very few. So are they counting on selling very few consoles? Their best bet would be to make their console trendy and exclusive. People who follow trends which is many, will want to be exclusive and buy the console.

 

[Oersted]

The "core gamer" market is pretty massive. PS3/360 sales combined are probably around 160 million by now. I'd argue that less than 10% of those are from truly "casual" gamers that only care about Kinect or Move and have no interest in core experiences.

So you're looking at an audience of 150 million that care about core experiences (CoD, Madden, etc).

Sony's goal is to get these core gamers back from Microsoft (which has split their market share in half), that's what their gamble is. Microsoft's gamble is that, "yeah, we'll retain our core, and also expand to new audiences". We'll see what works. I'm skeptical that there are some new audiences out there looking to buy a new Xbox just because it has a DVR built into it and don't care as much about the core experience.

150 million. PS2 alone reached the same numbers in much shorter time. And it didnt cause such a huge money loss like the PS3 did. The opposite to be exact. And the most succesful game by far on 360 was Kinect Adventures.

 

[spock]

I think its good to cater to the core gamer to an extent. The problem is if your primary design & console philosophy is built around them you automatically create barriers to the potential casual market. That's the mis-step that press seem to be resonating about the ps4.

You don't have to go all out pull in the hardcore. They are most likely buying into next gen as soon as there favorite games are on the platform. I'm betting this what MS is doing. Give just enough to keep the hardcore interested, while making sure to stick as much mass appeal in their box as possible.

People keep talking about the past as if the current gaming landscape is the same as it was back then. The options & user experience expectations in general are VERY different.

 

[Sorral]

150 million. PS2 alone reached the same numbers in much shorter time. And it didnt cause such a huge money loss like the PS3 did. The opposite to be exact. And the most succesful game by far on 360 was Kinect Adventures.

I replied to the same thing you said in the other thread. Here:

You can't really count it the way you are doing. This is just manipulating the data to suit your case. I get the point you're trying to make, but it is wrong based on how you're using your numbers.
If I do the same in counting how many are there for core gaming, then I'll include Steam (40m+ users) plus Origin (21m+). Then, we have the PC users who don't use either.

The PS3 and 360 are still selling and not at the age-point where the PS2 was at when it reached 150m+ yet they both combined still reached the PS2's 150+ milestone.

tl;dr: There is a growth in the core industry and it is not declining.

The PS2 took 11? or so years to get to 150m. The PS3 and 360 are on their 7th and 8th years, already reached that number and at arguably a higher entry price point even.

The PS2 started as much core device than it is as a casual then it turned much more casual later on especially with the price drops. As far as I can remember anyway.

 

[Neff]

'Core' gamers will always be ready and waiting to support the games industry, Casual gamers will not.

So it makes sense.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Tretton is such an abysmal PR mouthpiece.

Also the PS2 didn't reach 150 million until a long way into the 7th gen.

 

[Chuck Norris]

Pretty sure Nintendo went for the strategy of creating an environment that caters to the Ipad market and the core market. Didn't really do them much good did it?

Frankly I don't see gaming going anywhere. It's monetization models that need to grow, not moving the goal posts and creating something totally different. And Sony have been quite progressive on that front.

 

[Risette]

Exactly. We all know how Steve Jobs felt about gaming, after all.

It seems like the most defining characteristic (if there is one) of the casual gamer is that they go for the games with the lowest barrier to entry. They play games on Facebook because they already spend time on Facebook. They play games on their phone because it's always with them. They play games on their tablet because it's the most accessible computing device to use around the house.

There's money to be tapped in that audience, but I really don't see how any dedicated set-top box can compete in that space.

Steve Jobs is dead. Tim Cook is alive.

 

[nib95]

I was thinking about this earlier. Following on my post before, I feel like the mobile casual market is in its ps1 ps2 days. Easier to develop and thus cheaper and less costly. However, as mobile phone hardware develops, this will change, graphics will get better and better and Dev costs will increase.
That's when mobile games start charging more, and when they start going away from casual.

And that's what it boils down to. If a mobile game had Killzone Shadow Fall graphics and cost £20 less for the exact same game, would I buy it over the console version? Absolutely not. Touchscreen coupled with that smaller screen, just not the same eexperience, nor will it ever be. And that's partly why the core gamer will never fully migrate to mobile gaming.

 

[JimiNutz]

I think there'll always be a profitable audience for it, but they could lock themselves out of the possibilty of being a mega-success by focussing on us

With the state of Sony though, they kind of need it to be a mega-success

I agree with this.
I think their approach guarantees some success, but I can't imagine that they will recapture the market share that they lost with PS3.

I can't really imagine that MS is going to lose much ground either.

 

[Chuck Norris]

I think its good to cater to the core gamer to an extent. The problem is if your primary design & console philosophy is built around them you automatically create barriers to the potential casual market. That's the mis-step that press seem to be resonating about the ps4.

You don't have to go all out pull in the hardcore. They are most likely buying into next gen as soon as there favorite games are on the platform. I'm betting this what MS is doing. Give just enough to keep the hardcore interested, while making sure to stick as much mass appeal in their box as possible.

People keep talking about the past as if the current gaming landscape is the same as it was back then. The options & user experience expectations in general are VERY different.

The core gamer is extremely fickle. As is the development community. The key to winning is winning that audience. Sony lot their market share this gen because they lost favour to with the two groups.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

yes they are risking it all....

till the next madden, black ops, BF3, etc etc are on PS4

theres atleast 2 genarations of people that are straight up core gamers they arent going to give up Bioshock and GoW for anything else anytime soon.

 

[solarus]

Financially? Yes probably, they are limiting themselves greatly. Microsoft on the other hand will position themselves as a direct competitor to the eventual (and current) apple tv and other competitors, giving them a much wider market to appeal to and in the future will probably be a delivery mechanism for tv if that ideal future of paying for the channels/content that you want only pans out. I mean at one point they were demoing iptv for xbox 360 and the last e3 (and the one before?) they have been focusing more on the media content offerings of the console. The writing has been on the wall for a long time that the xbox brand is now an entertainment service. Honestly I think Microsoft is most likely to succeed, especially after the brand recognition they have won this gen, when people used to say playstation they say xbox now, it's synonymous with gaming. Personally for me I want the ps4, i love everything about the system and it being designed with gamers in mind, I don't see sony selling the most systems however unless microsoft really fucks up somehow.

 

[nib95]

The core gamer is extremely fickle. As is the development community. The key to winning is winning that audience. Sony lot their market share this gen because they lost favour to with the two groups.

Not because the core gamer was fickle they didn't, quite the opposite, because the core gamer seeks value proposition, and the PS3 frankly dropped the ball in that regard, at least early on anyway. Blame Sonys arrogance and misdirection for the loss in market share, not core gamers.

On a side note, I absolutely feel Sony has learnt from their mistakes, at least thus far anyway.

 

[spock]

Pretty sure Nintendo went for the strategy of creating an environment that caters to the Ipad market and the core market. Didn't really do them much good did it?

Frankly I don't see gaming going anywhere. It's monetization models that need to grow, not moving the goal posts and creating something totally different. And Sony have been quite progressive on that front.

I've mentioned this before but I'll repeat it again.

-How long has the wiiu been out?
-Have we seen nintendo release any true "disruptive" software for the casual market?..YET..
-Who has the best track regarding tapping into various mass market segments? (wii sport, wii fit, nintendodogs, brain training, etc..)

If you listen to and watch what nintendo has said and done, the point of the wiiu is to create a development canvas which gives them the best chance of creating innovative disruptive software that's new and fresh.

The broad market is attracted to whats new, hence they needed something beyond the wiimote. Nintendos philosophy is to create software ideas and possibilities and THEN design their hardware to meet there vision.

That is a distinct difference in approach they have. The focus on the user experience FIRST then build tech around it. The experience is the driving force not the tech. Sony uses the tech to drive the experience. But thats because their a tech company first and gaming second. Nintendo is a game company first and tech 2nd.

The wiiu is much better designed and setup to create broad market software because it was designed with that purpose in mind. When you factor in the cost and time required to create broad market software the vision gets even clearer.

Traditional core gamer gamers take big budgets and lots of time because they are visually driven. Broad market or disruptive style games from nintendo are relatively low cost to make and quick to develop. They dont rely on graphics they rely on user experience and tactile innovation which come mostly from the imagination and innovation of the game developer.

 

[rohlfinator]

Steve Jobs is dead. Tim Cook is alive.

Did Tim Cook go back in time and design the first four generations of iDevices to specifically target the casual gamer? Casual gaming has been just as much an afterthought in the design of mobile devices as it is in the design of dedicated consoles.

 

[Oersted]

I replied to the same thing you said in the other thread. Here:


The PS2 took 11? or so years to get to 150m. The PS3 and 360 are on their 7th and 8th years.

The PS2 started as much core device than it is as a casual then it turned much more casual later on especially with the price drops. As far as I can remember anyway.

You are still utterly wrong.

First: PC users don´t use Origin or Steam? Are you trying to be funny?

PS2 surpassed over 100 mil after 5 years, one year before PS3 was released. Thats why Sony made predictions like this. PS3 and X 360 reached in 5 years together 90 mil units. Both, especially Sony had to lose a lot of money to reach that. Should i add the Xbox sales to the PS2 ones to make it more clear?

 

[tim.mbp]

It's dumb. The "true" gamer will be there anyway. Core games, AAA, or whatever you want to call them are expected to be there by the consumer. They need to do more to appeal to a wider base of consumers, especially in the US.

 

[Risette]

Did Tim Cook go back in time and design the first four generations of iDevices to specifically target the casual gamer? Casual gaming has been just as much an afterthought in the design of mobile devices as it is in the design of dedicated consoles.

I wasn't aware that Steve Jobs was the Designer of Everything at Apple.

But no, actually apps weren't part of the plan at all in the original design.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

No because true gamers will always be there.

The Wii has shown us that casual gamers can be with you one year, and then move on to the next "hot" thing the next. Focusing on the casual can great for short term profits, but is pretty disastrous long term.

 

[spock]

The core gamer is extremely fickle. As is the development community. The key to winning is winning that audience. Sony lot their market share this gen because they lost favour to with the two groups.

Prior to the wii/ds generation winning the core audience was the key to winning in regards to profits. But in the post wii/ds era capturing the interest of the casual market is what will generate the most revenue.

The core is reliable, but they wont make you win anything but 2nd place.

 

[Meatvillain]

I don't think so, because at this point how do you appeal to casual gamers? Release a tablet without buttons and have every game F2P or 99c? Why would that audience not just continue to use/buy Apple or Samsung products? Focus on a kinect clone? I don't really know that you can appeal to the casual market as much anymore without completely alienating the "true gamer" market.

I absolutely think Sony are right to focus on the people that have traditionally bought their systems, particularly during a surprise 2 hour event in the middle of February where the only people who are really watching are the people who actually give a shit about videogames.

I think there's a much larger divide between these markets than there was when the Wii was successful. I think it's much more a "one or the other" type of decision and Sony have much better chances vying for the "core gamer" audience than the "casual" audience that don't even really want videogame consoles, they want the smartphones and tablets that they already have.

Fuck anyone who thinks everyone has to double down on smartphone/tablet bullshit to be successful. Or that if you're not chasing Apple you're doing it wrong. Ask Sony how well that fucking worked out for them with their completely irrelevant tablets.

 

[spock]

No because true gamers will always be there.

The Wii has shown us that casual gamers can be with you one year, and then move on to the next "hot" thing the next. Focusing on the casual can great for short term profits, but is pretty disastrous long term.

This is true in the sense that casuals move on quickly in contrast to the core. But if you look at nintendos ability to hit multiple segments in the broader market it clearly shows that there are many larger distinct markets that can be tapped with the right approach and appeal. Wii sports was very broad, wii fit was broad yet niche, brain training was another broad yet nice segment, same for nintendogs, and so on...
h
Those are examples of unique honeypots that where ignored because no one thought they existed or if they did that you could tap them.

What nintendo proved is that hooking the core is not a 1 hit wonder or fad type deal. It just takes the right type of innovation and user experience.

Its clearly not an easy thing to do (hook in a broad segment), but there is structure or formula. It might take multiple attempts but 1 out of ever couple attempts should hit.

 

[Mandoric]

You are still utterly wrong.

First: PC users don´t use Origin or Steam? Are you trying to be funny?

PS2 surpassed over 100 mil after 5 years, one year before PS3 was released. Thats why Sony made predictions like this. PS3 and X 360 reached in 5 years together 90 mil units. Both, especially Sony had to lose a lot of money to reach that. Should i add the Xbox sales to the PS2 ones to make it more clear?

A substantially less fumbled-in-development or less ambitious 360 and PS3 would also have reached the same 90 million selling to the same people. Both Sony and MS went multi-billions in the hole on manufactuing issues alone (Sony's plant set up to make hundreds of millions of Cells in five years, MS's RROD issues)

The woes of this gen say a lot, but they're firmly in the execution column.

 

[Sorral]

You are still utterly wrong.

First: PC users don´t use Origin or Steam? Are you trying to be funny?

PS2 surpassed over 100 mil after 5 years, one year before PS3 was released. Thats why Sony made predictions like this. PS3 and X 360 reached in 5 years together 90 mil units. Both, especially Sony had to lose a lot of money to reach that. Should i add the Xbox sales to the PS2 ones to make it more clear?

Where did I say PC users don't use Origin or Steam? >_> I said there are ones we cannot count that do not use either in addition to the ones who already use Steam(40m+) and Origin(21m+). It is foolish to think that absoluty everyone on PC uses either.

Also, that's over 61m+ that can be added to the PS3/360 numbers. Go ahead and add the Xbox and Gamecube numbers even. They will still be less than PS3/360/PC numbers in a shorter time frame.

Also, I don't know why you switched to 100m in 5 years now. The PS2's price was as low as 150? 5 years after it was released. The 360 was 250 to 300 in 2009. Even when you account for inflation, it is still way less money to pay. This only reinforces my point further as both were at a higher price point and still managed to sell as much as they did.

Edit: As for Hirai's prediction, I believe he changed it later to be similar to PS1 numbers and not PS2's.
Edit: MS and Sony losing money and having a terrible execution/higher price point != core market shrinking and not growing. I am trying to grasp why you included that.

 

[Byakuya769]

Casuals are good for short-run explosions in your stocks prices and glowing articles. Unless you're in a business where you can consistently get profit on each piece of hardware sold, your first target should be the heavy users to adopt early.

 

[Decado]

They are making a mistake if they think 3rd party devs will bother making clearly superior versions of multiplatform games if the PS3 is more powerful (unless Sony pays them to).

 

[Pie and Beans]

That analysts arent aware just what a fucking crapshoot F2P and microtransaction whale land are is painfully annoying.

Remember that super casual audience Nintendo bet the farm on with the Wii? Turns out theyre a fickle bunch and can just up sticks and leave you in dust. Hardcore gamers and the business they bring? Theyre gonna be there and wanting more games for as long as you can supply them. For a company like Sony, thats the customer base you want to focus on and grow to keep your company running LONG-TERM rather than fish for fickle "non-gamer" fuckers for short and unsustainable growth that leads to a dead end.

 

[Jack_AG]

Plenty of logic shooting down the article here. I dont need to reiterate so I post to show my support for their points.

 

[Chrysalis]

Casuals are good for short-run explosions in your stocks prices and glowing articles. Unless you're in a business where you can consistently get profit on each piece of hardware sold, your first target should be the heavy users to adopt early.

Exactly. For now, it looks like Sony has a real shot at taking the largest share of core in the upcoming gen. Core have a higher software attach rate than casuals and will buy the higher priced consoles. Msoft's lead this past gen came from an earlier release date and a better online infrastructure...the first won't be the case, and the second will be less true, if at all.

 

[shinra-bansho]

A substantially less fumbled-in-development or less ambitious 360 and PS3 would also have reached the same 90 million selling to the same people. Both Sony and MS went multi-billions in the hole on manufactuing issues alone (Sony's plant set up to make hundreds of millions of Cells in five years, MS's RROD issues)

The woes of this gen say a lot, but they're firmly in the execution column.

Pretty much. The market remains; the approach taken was somewhat flawed - moreso by Sony than MS.

The market may be fickle about who supplies their console gaming experiences; they still want those gaming experiences.

While it's yet to be proven the 'expanded audience' isn't simply fickle to console gaming in general.