-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NPD Sales Results for February 2011 [Update 4: PS3 Hardware, TONS Of Games]
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
mujun said:
catch up to the ps2? very small chance. the ps2 goes on to sell 200m units of software every year for the next 2-3 years at this point. for the ps3 to catch up, it would have to average 300m every year for the next 2-3 years.
as of right now, the wii is the only one that's 'ahead' but i suspect that even if it wasn't a system that was very obviously winding down, it won't be on the market long after its successor was.
Watchtower
Banned
AniHawk said:
Do you happen to have original Xbox LTD software sales?
OldJadedGamer said:
Leondexter said:
Thought about those, but decided that since the whole market was much smaller back then, it wouldn't really equal up to if the industry now backed a Nintendo console. Sorry for not being clearer. Meant the size of the industry in PS1/PS2 days, too. For the available third-party support at the time, NES certainly qualifies and probably SNES, too, though Genesis put on a big push for third-parties in the U.S.
Watchtower said:
i tried looking for them, but i couldn't find anything. i think they were above the gc's for what it's worth, which was at 208m. for some reason i want to say 240m, but i think that's because microsoft sold 24m xboxen.
microsoft did this thing where they would just release tie ratio and hardware numbers and leave the rest to guess work. if there were numbers around here, i can't find 'em.
Watchtower
Banned
AniHawk said:
Thanks for looking anyway. Well they certainly couldn't have been anywhere close to the 360, so would you agree 200-300 million is safe?
Meaning PS2/Xbox was around ~1.8 billion and currently the 360/PS3 is at ~850 million. About half way there. If they both last 10 years like the PS2, it's possible they can get there. We have not even hit that $199 mass market price between these two, and if this month is anything to go by we may actually be looking at an upcoming surge in this generation. Which is kind of weird.
mujun said:
AniHawk said:
Just looking at the U.S., Wii launch-aligned with PS2 is closer, but, yeah, worldwide there's still no comparison. Looking at current consoles ...
360 at end of its fifth December (2009) was at 164.7m. Wii at the end of its fifth December (2010) was something like 240m. Both are behind PS2, which would've been something like 270m at the end of its fifth December (2005).
Lord_Byron28
Member
Too respond to your earlier reply and this one. The above user you quoted wrote what I was trying to say better.Watchtower said:
You are completely correct about software being the most important factor. If all of the must have software was on the PS3 then the PS3 could've succeeded. It all depends on if the amount of appealing software to the consumer is worth the price point the platform holder is asking. However, sales do play an important factor. PS2' sales is why so many people announced games for the PS3 before the platform even released. PS3 sales also was the reason why so many projects went PS360 instead of exclusive to one or the other. If the Wii had bombed than the poor support it got would've been completely non-existant. So you're right that sales and hype mainly do come from offering a good amount of quality and succesful games but, at the same time tons of games don't show up without the sales and the hype.
The reason why GAF was unable to foresee DS, Wii's and Kinect's success was due to it offering something that they hadn't experienced before and weren't used to(as well as personal preference clouding their judgement). It's a lot easier to see the PS3 with MGS, Final Fantasy, Killzone, etc already anounced for the platform before it launches, the PS2 dominating the generation before and naturally assume it will be the console that will succeed. Many didn't(and many still don't quite) understand the success of Wii sports, Brain Training and Dance Central until they had/have experienced it for themselves. For the record based on hype, price and software leading up to this generation, I thought 360 would be in first with Wii following closely behind and PS3 in dead last. I thought both Wii and Kinect would be succesful but never saw it being as succesful as they have been. I also didn't think that PS3 would've so succesfully helped revive itself with it's essential relaunch with the PS3 Slim.
As for the next PS2, I don't see it in any of this generation. DS and to a lesser extent PSP has the Japanese audience and a huge amount of games going towards to it and now to a greater extent the 3DS and NGP. The 360 and PS3 have the Western audience and a huge amount of their games going toward that. Unfortunately for Western game developers, Japanese gamers are a lot more adverse to western games while the west is more receptive of Japanese games than vice versa. Then there is the Wii which captured the casual audience, the Nintendo fans and I'd say a lot of lapsed gamers or Nintendo fans that had abandoned them during the PS1/PS2 era. I think for the most part the PS2 captured all of those audiences except for all of the Nintendo fans and the hardcore shooter fans which came from the Xbox.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
donny2112 said:
A game machine with great online, Nintendo games, and every single top tier AAA third party game? I could die after owning that as it would be the ultimate system... ever and sell a billion units.
painful fart
Member
Zoe said:
Yeah that is certainly possible, I also see a risk that the market of exercise and dance games will go the same route as GH and RB have done. Once the market have been saturated, it may become more of a niche market with moderate sales.
Watchtower
Banned
Lord_Byron28 said:
Well I agree with just about everything you said there except for that fact that I see the 360/PS3 offering exactly the same type of games that were the main draw of the PS2 user base, and either could be seen as the platform that, for the most part, is currently sustaining the majority of that same user base(in other words most gamers that bought the PS2 most likely migrated to 360/PS3). And also both consoles are the recipients of the main third party games that basically built not just the PS2, but the Playstation, before it.
In other words, what truly defined the PS2 was the 100 million so core gamers it had. And those guys, as it turns out, threw Wii's sales success to the side and demanded developers continue to make the games they like in their true next generation form. Developers and those gamers saw eye to eye from the get go.
I've always believed that, which is why I never understood the apprehension some people have towards casual games. The guys who have a proven track record over the past 2 decades are the ones that are going to decide whether core games ever go away or not. The only way they are ever going to go away, is if that +100 million decided they don't like them anymore and vote with their wallets.
PS: And now if some of you truly believe that somehow Wii/DS captured that user base I advise you to take a harder look around. I'm not hiding the fact that I really like Microsoft's consoles because they have really nailed what gaming is to me the past 2 generations and as much as I'm excited about Kinect's future I will say this.....I sold nearly 30 units on Ebay between November and Christmas. I owned 30 Kinects. In my process, Best Buy actually made a fuck up and sent me 3 Kinects when I only paid for 2(they sent me two shipments, one in the first and somehow got confused and still put 2 in the second). So I got a Kinect for absolutely free. And you know what? I turned right back around and sold it. And I know I am speaking for most of those "core" gamers when I say if Dance Central and Kinect Animals and Wii's third party games is all that casual gaming offers, you couldn't give me one for free!!! I actually mean that shit. Never would have I done such a thing with the PS2, Xbox, heck even GameCube.
Watchtower said:
Here is where you lose me and everyone else who is reasonable. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you truly believe that out of ~150 million PS2 owners that 100 million were "core," you are deluding yourself. The PS2's library was so wide and eclectic that many of your so called "defining" games don't crack 10% attach rate. The core buys the most games per capita, yes, and the games that they like get the most attention, yes, but they do not represent even close to the majority of console owners or gamers in general, nevermind 2/3s.
Your thesis seems to hinge upon the assumption that that the widespread success of the PS2 was due to the presence of these core games which brought the numerous multitudes of the all powerful core demographic to the yard, which is simply not true. Its success was due to the fact that it had everything. "Main draw" doesn't matter. Development and marketing budget doesn't matter. When we talk about PS2 and why it dominated a market for 6 years, it comes down to breadth of content. A breadth that no console or handheld currently on the market possesses, including the DS which misses what seems to be the demographic you care most about. Nintendo's big experiment into that demographic of the DS, GTA: CW, failed.
As for your Post-script, which you added while I was writing this, first of all, don't speak for me or anyone else who is part of this community. We are enthusiasts; we are "core" in the way that the industry defines the term, but my tastes differ from Amirox's (oh god do they differ from Amirox's) differ from pretty much anyone else's on this forum. Second, the Wii and DS don't have those demographics. That is really the entire point: nobody has every demographic, which fostered the perfect storm of the PS2. Your opinion on the supposed successor to the PS2 seems to be largely self-serving: you want to declare the PS3/360 (combining them both, which I consider a cop-out) because they provide the content that matters the most to you.
A Twisty Fluken
Member
This post is full of awesome juice. I don't mean juice from the fruit of the awesome tree but just a juice with a bold, awesome flavor that has only a hint of aftertaste.Watchtower said:
Watchtower
Banned
evangd007 said:
Dude.....you lost me on the first sentence because that is exactly what has happend. You do realize that the combined user bases of the PS3/360 is right at 100 million right now? Who do you think these guys are? And they will probably far exceed 150 million(not counting what Kinect and Move bring in) by the end of this generation.
And you totally took me giving you some examples of the most prolific franchises and turned it into me saying those were the only reason PS2 achieved 150 million userbase. The PS2 had everything in the same exact sense that the 360/PS3 has everything. Both the 360/PS3 cover the spectrum of genres and franchises that were bought on the PS2.
The casuals that bought the PS2 and now the PS3/360s are very much included when I say those "core" gamers. Traditional casual gamers are part of what is now considered simply "core" gamers.
There was no such thing as a "casual motion control gamer" or the "grandpa generation" that the Wii brought in. This is a new customer. The PS2 didn't have this new demographics either. Those "casuals" you are talking about, do very much own both the 360/PS3 too for the same reasons they bought a PS2. For the record, those high profile franchises STILL only account for roughly 10% of the total sales even on 360/PS3.
If anyone's delusional it's you if you for a second believe the PS3/360 has each achieved 50 million units LTD each without the casual gamer. Somehow, perhaps because of the Wii or who knows, you somehow led yourself to the entirely wrong perception that the 360/PS3 do not attract casual gamers or don't have their share of them just because Wii's now brought in a larger demographic. They do! Always have. And the casual gamer has been around way before the Wii or PS2 actually.
I'm sorry but that was the biggest pile of misinformation I have yet seen here. You are basically automatically assuming those casual gamers that preferred traditional games have stopped liking those same games and don't exist on PS3/360 or perhaps moved on to the Wii. There is 0 proof of this.
As for the PS: I am not speaking for you. When I said that, I was also referring to the "core" in the way the industry defines them, not the way it's self-serving me. I'm trying my best to stick to the definitions most widely accepted by the industry. If anything you are re-defining my definition of what I believe is "core" to "hardcore" so you can prove how wrong I am.
Version 3.0
Member
Watchtower said:
Whoa, slow down with this. That's pretty out there. The PS2's audience was mostly casual. It just had a nice, solid core of "core" gamers. The same was actually true of the Xbox and Gamecube, too. That's why this gen is so fragmented: the "core" has mostly gone to PS3/360 and the "casual" has mostly gone to Wii.
Last gen, the PS2 had it all. This gen, no system does. What's so hard to accept about that?
Watchtower
Banned
Leondexter said:
See my post above. Core doesn't mean non-casual!
And yes they do. Both the PS2 and the 360 have it all.
With the exception of the ever so present slight shift in one genre over the next that always takes place, what genres of games did the PS2 have that the 360/PS3 do not?
Name me these genres that the PS3/360 are not covering that the PS2 did. This is non-sense. You guys are confused and believe the casual gamers that liked traditional games are the same as the new demographics the Wii brought in or they stopped liking those games.
And now I would argue that both the PS3 and 360 appeal to an even larger demographic because of Kinect/Move. The 360/PS3 hasn't lost any of the gamers the PS2 had. They are still "here" for crying out loud and there is no proof to all of a sudden assume they converted to 100% motion controllers or handheld owners.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Leondexter and evangd007 hit it on the head. Although there is a distinction between the "old casual" and the "new casual", in no way, shape or form is either of these groups as well represented on HD consoles as it was on the PS2 - at least not yet.
Watchtower
Banned
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
Tell me the difference. Please. Point it out with facts.
Please show me where the casual gamer that took the PS2 from ~30 million to ~150 million isn't the same casual gamer that took the 360 from 24 million to 50 million and the PS3 from ~30 million to 50 million.
If these aren't the same casual gamers who are they? Where did this additional 40 million come from? They sprouted out of thin air, while the others went away and bought Wiis and DSs. Really?
PS: Also if you are willing to admit there is a difference between the "old" and the "new" how can you even possibly say they are not being represented as well as the PS2, when they were not represented at all by the PS2? The new guys didn't exist. Neither did the games or console that brought them in.
Version 3.0
Member
Watchtower said:
You're making tons of assumptions. Firstly, you're leaving out the Xbox and Gamecube in your math, which were just as "hardcore" as the PS2, arguably more so. With those number included, this gen only adds up if you include the Wii, and then it surpasses last gen, which isn't surprising--it's happened every single generation to date. The market continues to grow.
Then you're assuming that all 360/PS3 owners are hardcore gamers, which is absurd.
Then you're re-defining "core" to suit your own purposes. To be fair, that stupidity is rampant in the industry, but even allowing you to decide that, say, Madden is suddenly a "core" game, you're discounting the millions of parents who bought PS2s for their kids, or even just the tens of millions who never played the specific games you think should "count" for your definitions.
I was defending you earlier somewhat, but now you've completely gone off the deep end. Get a grip.
Watchtower
Banned
Leondexter said:
I added the Xbox and PS2 together further above. I am not discounting that. But it is reasonable to assume most GC owners did still go with the Nintendo console. Also, I never used the term hardcore. And to me core in this day and age means "traditional gamers". What does core mean to you?
The only assumptions I see here is that the 360/PS3 doesn't attract the same amount of casuals the PS2 did and that these guys are doing something else now. Yes there are a few of you saying this with absolutely nothing to back it up. The numbers would not even add up if that was the case(even with growth).
PS: Madden is a core game. It's a core game that appeals to both casuals and "hardcore" gamers alike.
Version 3.0
Member
Watchtower said:
As I said, your math is bad. You're lumping the 360 and PS2 together while discounting the 30+ million Xbox/Gamecube owners that existed at this point last gen.
Anyway, why do you think someone who was casually interested in Tiger Woods Golf last gen wouldn't now be playing Tiger Woods Golf, motion-controlled Wii edition? Or Wii Sports? Why wouldn't a parent who bought a PS2 so their kids could play Dragon Ball, Spyro or Ratchet and Klank buy a Wii so their kids could play Mario Kart?
There's no doubt in my mind that casual PS2 owners became casual Wii owners - in fact, polling data presents that as indisputable fact. I expect there's been a shift in the last year or so, but at one point, IIRC, something like 70 percent of new console buyers were PS2 owners migrating to the Wii. There was also a fair amount of data that showed that the "Wii owners who'd never bought a videogame before" phenomenon was exaggerated.
However, I wouldn't say the PS3/360 have big gaps in their genre coverage. What I would say is they have big gaps in the success of those genres.
Watchtower
Banned
Leondexter said:
No I'm not man. I simply made that statement in general speaking terms. If you notice above I was actually trying to figure out the total number of Xbox/PS2 software sales to make that exact calculation in terms of software but no one could actually give me solid numbers.
If you want to add it all in, by all means. It still doesn't make a difference to my argument and it still doesn't change the fact the 360/PS3 is probably well over 50% casual just as of right now. This generation is far from over. Most of those casuals jump in at sub-$199.
And again, I'm not assuming that some are NOT playing Tiger Woods Motion Control. Why are you assuming they are not also playing Tiger Woods PS3/360 all of a sudden? Just because the Wii exists?
What proof is there to say that the hardcore gamers stayed put...but the casuals moved to the Wii, and all of a sudden they can't play with a traditional contoller anymore that served them just fine over the past 20 years. That, if you ask me, is the more unreasonable assumption. There is no proof of that.
There is proof of the opposite, mainly both 360s and PS3s user bases. The fact is there are no basis that the PS3/360 does not cover for the gamers that played during the PS2 era. None. The PS3/360 cover all of those basis and like I said, with Kinect and Move, even more. The PS3/360 if anything appeal to a larger demographic than the PS2 did because they also offer motion controls now.
That was the whole point you know.
Version 3.0
Member
Watchtower said:
It's not at all reasonable to assume Gamecube owners became Wii owners. That's an extremely poor assumption. Firstly, the history of this industry proves conclusively that such brand loyalty is quite weak. And secondly, Nintendo targets children as their #1 market, and those kids grow up and may very well want more "mature" games (God help us all for using that horrible misnomer).
By the way, "core" came from "hardcore". So yes you did use it. I'll tell you what "core" means to me: it's an infantile way for someone to indirectly insult something they don't like. Too many people - you included, from what I've seen - use "core" to basically create an "in" clique of people or games, implicating that everything else is the "out" group.
That seems to be pretty much what you're doing here. You want to define what you like as successful and good, while deriding everything else. You want the PS2 defined by what you like about it, and you want the current system(s) you like defined the same way. My advice is to let it go. Enjoy what you like. If it makes you feel any better, you can consider the Xbox 360 to be a much more "core" system than the PS2 ever was.
Watchtower
Banned
Leondexter said:
That could not be further from the truth and I see you have completely gotten off the main discussion. I never used the term "core" to create an in and out group. I used the term core to define traditional games, which typically did not include fitness and dance games. And it doesn't matter where "core" came from. The meaning has changed multiple times and I mentioned this last week in a similar discussion.
And I want PS2 defined by what it was to most gamers that bought it. The absolute undisputed leader for leading third party console games support. Something for everybody. Like you say. That's still 360/PS3. Not Wii, not DS.
I don't care how many ways you guys want to spin it. The PS3/360 comes out as the actual successors to the PS2. User base, leading third party support, actual games....however you look at it with the one exception being sales...it turns out it's the 360/PS3 that carried on that legacy.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Watchtower said:
As far as breadth of content goes, I don't think it even needs pointing out, it's that obvious. PS2 had all the genres popular today (true, maybe it wasn't as strong in first-person shooters), but also plenty of stuff that has since either moved to the Wii and handhelds or disappeared completely (for instance, a HUGE library of quality JRPGs, platformers, quirky low to mid budget Japanese games and plenty of embarrassing shovelware which always tends to stick with the most popular platform).
From the sales perspective, you can take a look at some of the most prominent "old casual" franchises. SingStar and Buzz used to be very big in Europe, but they've since lost a lot of their audience (to the point that the Buzz developer has abandoned the franchise altogether), and not to Lips and Scene It. Now, in the case of SingStar you could argue that the audience has simply moved onto Guitar Hero and Rock Band (which are not exactly in the same boat since their plastic instruments require a significant investment), but Guitar Hero has in fact continued to do fantastic numbers on the PS2 as well (and of course, the Wii).
The Sims, another staple "old casual" franchise, also used to do significantly better on the PS2 than it currently does on HD consoles, and no other franchise has taken its place.
But looking at just specific IPs doesn't paint the whole picture because, as others have already pointed out, PS2's strength wasn't in great sales of a few franchises, but in good sales of many. Both Xbox 360 and PS3 lack that breadth of content that would attract many different types of gamers in significant numbers, which is something that PS2 used to manage effortlessly.
Watchtower said:
Yeah, I misspoke. There was obviously no "new casual" crowd back then.
Version 3.0
Member
Watchtower said:
Alright, never mind then. Let me just say this: the demographic breakdown of the current-gen consoles is fairly muddled, and has been the whole gen. But if there's anything you can be certain of, it's this: the PS2's demographic did not move wholesale over to any one current system. Move looks to be quite the failure, but I would agree that the 360 is doing the best job of trying to pick up the PS2's wider demographic now, with their big push for Kinect.
And, once again, your math is bad. This gen, just like every gen before it, will end with more systems (and games) sold than last gen. That makes any kind of direct correlation of sales between generations chancy at best. You can't just say "this 1 billion software units were bought by the same people as this 1 billion" because you want it to be true. That's the poorest analysis possible.
Version 3.0
Member
Watchtower said:
That's the largest possible exception there is. If it isn't carrying on the PS2's sales, then it isn't carrying on the PS2's legacy at all, is it? Besides, there are plenty of other distinctions, but you're giving all the lengthy explanations the ostrich head-in-the-sand treatment.
Look, as I said hours ago, if you feel the 360 (or the odd PS3/360 hybrid beast you insist on) is the most similar current console to what the PS2 was, that's a totally valid view. There's nothing wrong with that view at all.
But the simple fact is that the market is very different now to what it was last gen, and there is no true equivalent.
Watchtower
Banned
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
But many of the genres you are talking about are not actually being represented by anything else either in a big way. So that tells me those genres popularity has faded and other genres have taken over not that the PS3/360 fails to represent them. By contrast the 360/PS3 have far more FPS, far more Guitar Heroes and Rockbands(and yes Guitar Hero/Rockband dwarfed Singstar on the PS2 in popularity), far more western RPGS that the PS2 didn't have.
The huge quality of JRPGS didn't move to the Wii either, and the main reason they moved to the DS is because JRPGS are primarily most popular in Japan, and that's the state of the industry there(which btw, has a whole lot to do with the fact that the 360 couldn't break into that market...so a long time went by where the PS3 was out of reach to most Japanese gamers and no alternative unlike the US/Europe which did go for the 360). And let's not forget DQ either.
What you are talking about is that demand for certain types of genres have faded since the PS2 for one reason or another. Not that the 360/PS3 isn't covering those gamers that enjoyed those genres and someone else is or that gamers that played Singstar, JRPGs or quirky games moved on to the Wii or no longer exist.
I mean what are you going to say about the might Tony Hawk? The 360/PS3's at fault and isn't covering that demographic which is why it's no longer in a big way? Because that was a pretty big series on the PS2 as well. No, I think you would agree the series just lost its popularity.
Watchtower
Banned
Brashnir said:
What would you have me do man? These guys are replying to me. Ignore them? I wanna go to bed too. It would be rude for me to do so when they are taking the time to argue this much with me.
Watchtower
Banned
Leondexter said:
Ok so finally...you admit. The only way in which the PS3/360 isn't like the PS2 is sales domination.
Thanks. That's all I have been saying all along. Why did we all argue for so long?
Watchtower
Banned
Brashnir said:
It's been days. Just let it go.
The discussion has changed course quite a few times and like I said in my edit, it would actually be rude to ignore their replies when they are taking their time to reply to me. I don't really see why it should bother you. There's no name calling. No one's committing internet murder or anything.
It's just all in good fun.
V_Arnold said:
Ah but it has....
It went from the Wii/Ds is the successor to the PS2. Saying it's the PS3/360 means you are an ignorant ass licking fanboy.
Then it went to the Wii/DS is the successor to the PS2 in Japan/sales. No one is the successor.
Then it went to, one could argue that the PS3/360 is the successor to the PS2 and it be ok.
And now it's basically coming closer to Wii/DS is the successor in terms of sales while it's ok to say PS3/360 is the successor in terms of games.
I wouldn't say that it went nowhere. I actually think we made quite a bit of progress.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Watchtower said:
So you agree that the circumstances have changed significantly since then and that PS2 and Xbox 360/PS3 are nothing alike. Good.
Watchtower
Banned
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
First part yes. Never argued that. Second part, absolutey not, obviously. They are very much alike in terms of games, third party support and the demographics they are going for.
Really if we're back to 0 then at this point I will have to call it a night.
Version 3.0
Member
Watchtower said:
That's not exactly what I said, Mr. Ostrich (did the bit about "plenty of other distinctions" mean nothing to you?), but if you go back to my very first reply to you, you'll find that I said almost the same thing in that post as this last one. Your view is perfectly valid on the face of it. But when you get into the particulars, you sound nuts.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Watchtower said:
I think that would be the sanest thing to do, yes.
Personally, I don't think there is or ever will be a PS2 of this generation. It's not a single console, it's not a handheld and it's not a combination of HD consoles. Frankly, I don't understand where this desire to identify a PS2 of this generation even comes from. The things are very different now and the PS2 was by no means a perfect platform. No single platform ever was
although the Dreamcast had the chance of becoming one 
Watchtower
Banned
Leondexter said:
I could say the same thing about anyone that thinks the DS/Wii is the successor to the PS2. Or that the PS3/360 doesn't cover the same games, demographics or basically offers the same thing the PS2 did. Or that the 360/PS3 doesn't have casuals. They're nuts.
PS: I didn't actually say half the things you re-stated in your own way in that post above that made me sound nuts.
Watchtower
Banned
REMEMBER CITADEL said:I think that would be the sanest thing to do, yes.
Personally, I don't think there is or ever will be a PS2 of this generation. It's not a single console, it's not a handheld and it's not a combination of HD consoles. Frankly, I don't understand where this desire to identify a PS2 of this generation even comes from. The things are very different now and the PS2 was by no means a perfect platform. No single platform ever wasalthough the Dreamcast had the chance of becoming one
Yes
And the Dreamcast was perfection. Fact
painful fart
Member
Just to examplify Microsofts view of the term "core games".
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.255549-Microsoft-We-Wont-Abandon-Core-Gamers
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.255549-Microsoft-We-Wont-Abandon-Core-Gamers
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
painful fart said:
I thought this was going to be about people in Metallica T-shirts, but the point of posting this is... What exactly?
Watchtower
Banned
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
LOL. Yeah same here. And I get the joke, but honestly I think this really should be the first thing to agree upon before having any more discussions on demographics. Namely what the general definition is for the terms we throw around.
If we were to go by that article:
Those guys seem to define "core" in the same way I do and used it in my posts above. To them it is the entire pre-Kinect 360 user base. Anyone that wasn't drawn in to gaming primarily by the simplicity of motion controlled games. So "core" to them includes both traditional casual gamers as well as traditional "hardcore" 360 gamers, before Kinect.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
When fastened together it can also make a fetching skirt.AniHawk said:
painful fart
Member
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
Well, some page ago there was a discussion about the defintion of core games/core gamer.
I thought it was kind of interesting that the two games Dennis picked to illustrate core games was Halo and Gears.
I wonder what games Iwata would pick to illustrate the core games of the Wii, I doubt it would be shooters. Then who is right?