TrueGrime
Member
Yeah, this. Disappointed it's not happened yet. SM64 and BanjoKazooie are two of my favourite games ever.[/QUOTE]
I remember when SM64 came out. That was a revolution in platform gaming. Hell, gaming in general.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why Platformers struggle today
- Thread starter Aostia
- Start date
I remember when SM64 came out. That was a revolution in platform gaming. Hell, gaming in general.
Guacamelee isn't really PS exclusive though, what with the PC release and upcoming 360 and Wii U releases (and Xbox One I think).
On a different note, I do wonder how a 2D platformer with a realistic artstyle would perform in retail. I don't mean a cheap handheld spinoff like Batman Blackgate, but something that could be seen as a flagship game for the publisher. A 2D Metroid for example.
TrueGrime
Member
maybe that's because you haven't bothered. I know you didn't because if you did you would have mentioned Spelunky
Two series from the PS2 era and a Mario game is not a lot
TheSlySoul
Member
That is why I am kind of excited for Sonic Boom. It seems like an experiment, but still faithful to the series. Knuckles is not an idiot and Amy is actually not a pain in the neck.
Also, if all of Sonic Lost World played like the 2nd world, I would have little issue.
It's so sad that until that game Tomb Raider was a platformer offering the same kind of challenge as the other platformers you mention. There was no disparity between look and gameplay there. The rise of cinematic experiences is probably going to eventually strangle challenge out of the whole industry.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
We've already had the Puppeteer discussion, but as an aside, it sold less than Indigo Prophecy. My point being, I'm not sure how bad a game has to be to deserve to sell less than Indigo Prophecy.
Major 3rd parties don't make platformers because they are chasing the Call of Duty sales to their own detriment. We know platformers are easier to develop, have lower costs, lower risks, and higher Return On Investment because the indies have chosen it as their genre because they are easier to develop, have lower costs, and lower risks and those games are selling well enough to keep many indies alive.
The reason why retail platformers aren't selling is because only Nintendo has cultivated an audience for them because of Mario, and their console is a dud. When a person thinks "platformer" they think "Mario," much as when a person thinks "FPS," they think "Call of Duty." Microsoft cultivated an audience for FPS games which Sony followed in cultivating with much gusto while Nintendo cultivated an audience for platformers, hence why Call of Duty sells like crap on the most popular Nintendo console and Rayman sells best on the flailing, drowning Nintendo console. However, it is likely that a Rayman game cost a lot less to make than Lords of Shadow 2 which floundered even worse, which means we might still see a Rayman Legends 2. In addition, Sonic appears to still have enough popularity to get his own cartoon series even today and the fact that Sega decided to make Sonic exclusive to Nintendo for the foreseeable future should tell people how beneficial Nintendo's connection to platformers is for other platformer franchises.
I remember going to this one video game specialty store, which is run by this lovely couple (let's say their names we're Josh & Anna), that you could try any game (either new or used) before you can purchase it. They were helping a bunch of kids (and their parents) trying to find some games to play for the PS2-PS3. When they had recommended some fine games that had a more light hearted appeal (Ratchet & Clank, Sky Gunner, etc.), they've replied in a similar tone to what you had described. "Those games are for children."
Naturally, Anna had replied "And you guys are like, what, senior citizens?!", in which the kids had laughed. Afterwards, they had encouraged those tykes to give those games a shot.
I agree that having such a mindset can be rather disheartening, but if you ask me, it's all about encouraging people to give it a try.
family_guy
Member
Ratchet is milked more than Mario. We were getting one almost every year since PS2. That's why the sales declined. Nintendo at least let their console Mario platformers breathe for a few years or more. There was a long gap between 64, Sunshine, and Galaxy.
JinjoUnchained
Member
That's all true. So that begs the question, why don't AAA console developers try to cultivate an audience for mature-themed platformers? Imagine if Ubi used the UbiArt framework to create a 2D Metroidvania-themed Assassin's Creed, but packaged, branded, and advertised it like any other game in the series. People would buy that. A lot of older gamers have fond memories of Contra/Strider/Metroid and would be open to that style of game with a more modern IP and production values. I've always felt that the series would work better in 2D anyway: parkour, item crafting, stealth, exploration would work well in that perspective.
That's my point and what I think the OP was getting at. Maybe people think "platformer = Mario" today like you said, but it would be worth it for other major developers to try and change that perception and cultivate an audience for platformers or more traditional arcade style games. It would be a nice middle ground between 100 million dollar COD killer and cheap F2P abomination.
I think the problem is that AAA developers develop games because they want to make the biggest, most expansive game ever, which cannot be done under the limitations of the 2D Platformer. However, making a huge, expansive game has huge, expansive costs whereas limitation, like those of the 2D Platformer, can breed genius. That and as far as the current major video game franchises go, there are expectations that fans have in regards to companies and franchises. People expect Call of Duty to be an FPS as much as they expect Mario to be a Platformer, despite the Call of Duty setting easily fitting into the Contra/Metal Slug mold with just a genre shift. This is why people complain when Castlevania turns into God of War or when Tomb Raider turns into Uncharted. Very few franchises can expand beyond their genre like Mario can, and Mario got away with it by making it clear up front that these genre shifts were not mainline games and then making the spinoffs damn good in their own right.
SonyToo!™
Member
That certainly wouldn't happen on non Nintendo platform.
On other platforms anything over $15 is a hard sell just look at the $30 price announcement for Oddworld New 'n Tasty.
JinjoUnchained
Member
Yeah, I guess that's my main problem with the industry. The whole "everyone else is setting budget records chasing COD, let's do it too" hive mindset. It doesn't even make good business sense. I still think that there is a market for this kind of experience, even within well established IPs. Look at the recent Castlevania and Batman titles for 3DS. With a little more polish, resources, and development time, those titles could have been big sellers on modern consoles. So maybe that won't happen on XBox and PS, but that could be a way back to respectability for Wii U. One hypothetical example: Nintendo could money hat Konami to make Contra 5 a Wii U exclusive with a 15 hour campaign, online co-op, and launch with a proper advertising campaign. Then make sure there's a title like that in the pipeline every month in addition to your Marios and Raymans of the world. Bring it back to the 80s when Mario and Simon Belmont sat side-by-side on the same retail shelf and were both highly successful. For the same reason 30 million people bought NSMB Wii, millions would get a New Castlevania or New Mega Man: nostalgia.
A lot of platformers sell very well and would seem to have a good return on investment, so I think I'd disagree with the central point of the thread.
Just today I beat the World 6 boss again
and I have to say I totally agree with you here. The bosses are well designed and look great, but they're all much too long, and involve so much busywork. The World 6 boss alone has those segments where you impotently watch him dance and fight his minions to throw them at him. Then when you finally get the chance to jump on him, if you don't jump far enough onto his back, the game just registers it as him ramming you with his horns.
True story: first time I got to the boss I tried jumping on him a couple of times and got the horns. I assumed at that point that it was like King K. Rool in the first DKC, and you couldn't jump on him. So I did the minion dance bit and dodged him for like 20 minutes before looking it up and, yeah, you gotta jump on him.
Bit of a rant there and I apologize, but my point is this is a truly brilliant game, but everyone gives these bosses a pass and I don't understand it. But I do agree with you, OP.
Also completely agree with this (although I would disagree about World 7, but that's a matter of preference).
I enjoyed Sonic Generations but Lost World is hands-down the better game. Not even close in my mind. And yet people seem to savage Lost World and complain it's not more like Generations. I don't really know what people have against Lost World, except that the run mechanic takes some getting used to, and some of the parkour stuff really has to be learned through failure. I could guess why people are so quick to write it off, but everything I could say would sound like some conspiracy theory, so I won't.
Just today I beat the World 6 boss again
on hard mode
True story: first time I got to the boss I tried jumping on him a couple of times and got the horns. I assumed at that point that it was like King K. Rool in the first DKC, and you couldn't jump on him. So I did the minion dance bit and dodged him for like 20 minutes before looking it up and, yeah, you gotta jump on him.
Bit of a rant there and I apologize, but my point is this is a truly brilliant game, but everyone gives these bosses a pass and I don't understand it. But I do agree with you, OP.
Also completely agree with this (although I would disagree about World 7, but that's a matter of preference).
I enjoyed Sonic Generations but Lost World is hands-down the better game. Not even close in my mind. And yet people seem to savage Lost World and complain it's not more like Generations. I don't really know what people have against Lost World, except that the run mechanic takes some getting used to, and some of the parkour stuff really has to be learned through failure. I could guess why people are so quick to write it off, but everything I could say would sound like some conspiracy theory, so I won't.
Media Molecule tried with Tearaway. It got phenomenal reviews and sold like a bag of dead kittens. (Granted it released on the Vita)
It sold 14k in around a month. Sure there are digital sales that are unaccounted for, and the development team was relatively small, but it's hard justify greenlighting 3D platformers with figures like that.
I've actually said myself many times that the games you mentioned should be what Nintendo should aim for rather than the traditional market of the PlayStation and Xbox brand... Well, maybe I should say Xbox brand since PS1 & PS2 did have a lot more variety in retail releases before Sony started having to chase the Xbox market. I suppose the impetus is on Konami, Capcom, and Square Enix not wanting to do anything like that, even despite Bravely Default, a RPG that's more Classic Final Fantasy than even the Final Fantasy games, getting the tenth spot on retail sales in February.
I would not be surprised if WB Games Vault and Ubisoft's UbiArts initiatives end up being relatively successful, but I think a big barrier to success for many digital-only console games is the fact they are digital-only and relegated to consoles only. I mean Minecraft is this superhuge digital indie game, and it constantly secures a spot on the top ten of NPD, which only tracks retail sales. That ninth spot Minecraft constantly has is pure physical disc sales, not accounting for digital sales! That should say everything that is wrong with the retail console game industry right there. Much as in other mediums, people want the choice on how to experience their media. This is why vinyl and CDs still exist despite MP3s taking part of the market. This is why you can get a movie on Blu-Ray, DVD, and Digital in a combo pack for one price and why RedBox and Netflix can coexist. This is why MS had to 180 from their DRM scheme with their Xbox One. People want choice in how to experience their entertainment and any limitation in that aspect loses potential customers.
How much of Mario's success these days is on name recognition alone? If Sony were allowed to reskin the next Mario game side by side with Nintendo and call it something different, how much worse would it sell than its Nintendo counterpart?
Regardless of the Wii U woes, Nintendo does a good job with its IP. The reason they lost my interest is because they rarely develop new IP. Games like Tearaway and Puppeteer feel like they could be right at home on a Nintendo console. Yet they fail on Sony consoles. Would they have been more successful on a Nintendo console, or would they still get lost in the shadow of Mario?
Creating new IP for a platformer doesn't seem to work anymore. LittleBigPlanet is an anomaly. I have a hard time believing we'll ever see the creation of a new blockbuster franchise. There seems to be a stubborn resistance that favors the classic franchises. Consumers don't want to take the $40-60 risks on a new IP, so developers/publishers can't take risks either.
Regardless of the Wii U woes, Nintendo does a good job with its IP. The reason they lost my interest is because they rarely develop new IP. Games like Tearaway and Puppeteer feel like they could be right at home on a Nintendo console. Yet they fail on Sony consoles. Would they have been more successful on a Nintendo console, or would they still get lost in the shadow of Mario?
Creating new IP for a platformer doesn't seem to work anymore. LittleBigPlanet is an anomaly. I have a hard time believing we'll ever see the creation of a new blockbuster franchise. There seems to be a stubborn resistance that favors the classic franchises. Consumers don't want to take the $40-60 risks on a new IP, so developers/publishers can't take risks either.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Yeah, and I think first person shooters are soon to follow. Open world gaming is where we're headed, every door will open, every window brake, everything would just about be accessible.
Open world platformers, fighters, Shooters, action adventure, horror, survival horror, open world everything.
Boomstick (Coffee Crazy)
Banned
This thread and many of its replies (All platformers should be $20? I'll concede when they make all CoD and its clones $15) make me weep for the future of gaming.
We will have officially failed as a society the day that fucking Ghost from MW2 becomes more iconic and nostalgic than Mario, Crash, and all the other good platforming characters.
We will have officially failed as a society the day that fucking Ghost from MW2 becomes more iconic and nostalgic than Mario, Crash, and all the other good platforming characters.
I still don't understand why more indies just don't go with 2D Beat em Ups like Castle Crashers.
It is SO SIMPLE to make a decent beat em up .... Genesis Ninja Turtles has like 2 enemy sprites that are not bosses and the rest is pallete swap with minor changes and it is one super fun game
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
It's more than the 'cartoony' art styles. Borderlands 2 was cell shaded. But people buying the non Nintendo consoles usually want to murder things violently online and platformers don't scratch that itch.
Most platformer developers don't do a good job of selling you on the main character or the game's world either, which was a big part of what made old-school platformers successful.
Turtles was the exception, not the rule. There were a TON of horrendous beat em ups in the 8/16 bit eras. Many of them didn't release outside of Japan but it takes a lot to get the feel right.
Turtles was the exception, not the rule. There were a TON of horrendous beat em ups in the 8/16 bit eras. Many of them didn't release outside of Japan but it takes a lot to get the feel right.
Yes, would like to see Rayman and Donkey Kong make a trip into 3D platform/adventure again rather than 2D all the time. Hopefully Ratchet & Clank can make a great appearance on the PS4 too. Dunno what to say about Banjo and co though with them being tied up with MS.
I blame the target audience moving away from platformer's
these days kids play minecraft, CoD and what ever else the fuck is popular on youtube. or on their parent's smart devices where plenty of free addicting games.
Nintendo still has it's million of core fans and their children who still buys their games cause nostalgia, where else other companies..not so much nostalgic there.
these days kids play minecraft, CoD and what ever else the fuck is popular on youtube. or on their parent's smart devices where plenty of free addicting games.
Nintendo still has it's million of core fans and their children who still buys their games cause nostalgia, where else other companies..not so much nostalgic there.
I don't think many people complained about full price for Rayman Origins or Legends. Also there haven't been many attempts at full platforming games on non-Nintendo consoles, so saying anything over $15 is a hard sell is an assumption.
Also, the Oddworld situation is completely different. If it was a new Oddworld game I think people might be okay with a $30 dollar price, but it isn't, its a remake of a game from 1997, and I think people would be much more willing to pay for it if it was $15.
TheCongressman1
Member
Absolutely. Had Retro been working on a 3D Donkey Kong, I would have been much more enthused.
rokkerkory
Member
because guns in first person
Benzychenz
Member
This hurts me. We only got two proper Ratchet's this gen, but got three budget titles and a crappy spinoff. Such a mismanaged IP.
Also Ape Escape being milked with all those PSP spinoffs and dying ;_;
IAmRandom31
Banned
When it comes to popular genre's it is always a game of follow the leader.
In the NES days, it was Mario Bros being copied by everyone.
In the fighting game world, everyone wanted that Street Fighter popularity. Then later on everyone wanted that Mortal Kombat popularity. Then people moved onto copying Tekken or mixing both Virtua Fighter and Tekken or whatever.
When R-Type type shooters became popular, everyone made those. When Monster Hunter got popular, companies tried to make money off that. Lately Puzzle and Dragons is making money, so others are copying that formula.
Call of Duty got popular, so everyone is copying that formula hoping to cash in. Everyone just waits for that one defining game that gets massive popularity and makes massive money and then tries to copy off it and make money themselves. Heck the Souls series is creatings its own legion of copy cats.
This same thing has happened throughout the gaming industry's lifespans.
JRPG's, SRPG's were popular for a time, space flight shooters, sidescrolling space shooters, hell even military simulations were popular in the 16-bit era. You had PC games with 400 page flight manuals, along with simulators on the SNES/Genesis for submarines, battleships, tanks, etc. Back in the day, the God game was very popular with Sim Earth. Sim World, Sim Ant, Sim City, etc. filling up the shelves.
I think Star Citizen may be the game that brings back the space epic, because that game is going to sell some serious millions of copies I think. It just takes that one game for other developers to take notice and other suits in publishing studios to loosen their jocks to the idea of maybe a game in that genre having a chance at profit.
In the NES days, it was Mario Bros being copied by everyone.
In the fighting game world, everyone wanted that Street Fighter popularity. Then later on everyone wanted that Mortal Kombat popularity. Then people moved onto copying Tekken or mixing both Virtua Fighter and Tekken or whatever.
When R-Type type shooters became popular, everyone made those. When Monster Hunter got popular, companies tried to make money off that. Lately Puzzle and Dragons is making money, so others are copying that formula.
Call of Duty got popular, so everyone is copying that formula hoping to cash in. Everyone just waits for that one defining game that gets massive popularity and makes massive money and then tries to copy off it and make money themselves. Heck the Souls series is creatings its own legion of copy cats.
This same thing has happened throughout the gaming industry's lifespans.
JRPG's, SRPG's were popular for a time, space flight shooters, sidescrolling space shooters, hell even military simulations were popular in the 16-bit era. You had PC games with 400 page flight manuals, along with simulators on the SNES/Genesis for submarines, battleships, tanks, etc. Back in the day, the God game was very popular with Sim Earth. Sim World, Sim Ant, Sim City, etc. filling up the shelves.
I think Star Citizen may be the game that brings back the space epic, because that game is going to sell some serious millions of copies I think. It just takes that one game for other developers to take notice and other suits in publishing studios to loosen their jocks to the idea of maybe a game in that genre having a chance at profit.
During the Steam holiday sale Borderlands 2 caught my attention and I decided to research aka youtube it. Literally the first comment was "looks cool, but why so cartoony?" Presentation is everything. Immersion is the reason why people play games like TLoU and think "jumping around" in Mario is pointless / for kids.
And everything needs to be open world. Idk why but they love to traverse literally flat terrain with low frequency of points of interest. The scenery is fascinating I guess.
Another thing is what I call the screenplay. In Assassin's Creed it's "awesome" to see your character acrobatically climb various structures, but in the end all you do as a player is press forward. There is no actual platforming system implemented, it's on auto pilot. Screenplay is very important. It's not about how engaging a gameplay mechanic is, it's how you dress it up. I.e. chasing bunnies in Mario is kiddy stuff, it's not the challenge of capturing the bunny by using your surrounding environment in your favor that matters, it's the fact that you are chasing a bunny which negates the entire thing. "Why am I chasing a bunny?" ... they want to be presented with so called epicness, i.e. jumping from rooftop to rooftop with cinematic shaky cameras, not cutesy bunnies, despite the fact that the latter is the one that presented an actual gameplay opportunity.
Amazeballs
Member
I wonder if there's a noticeable correlation between world design and art budget in 3D games. Some of the most gorgeously realistic games released these days seem to have poorly designed environments. Skyrim immediately springs to mind and it seems like a quite a few recent shooters and even some RPGs rely on corridors filled with enemies to pad out gameplay. It's a pertinent question seeing as how platformers rely mostly on level design.
The dev team grew with time, and while it didn't reach the 150 staff number it still became larger than the original 8 man team when the project started.
And poeple should stop using Mario as a answer, he's an exception to the rule, as long as the game is on a decent performing platform, that is.
I don't understand why people make distinctions between Mario games and spin off but then throws in everything named after Ratchet and say "but it's more milked than mario!". it's pretty common :/
They released 3 mainline games in the past years, respectively 3, 2 and 4 years after the previous instalment.
If we're counting 3d Marios alone, I see 4 games out in the same span.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Borderlands 2 sold over 8.5 million, which shows that cartoony graphics alone won't doom an IP.
I think whatever demand there is for traditional character platformers is already served by the Mario and Sonic franchises. If devs want to bring in a new audience then they'll have to make a new type of platformer for that audience.
timetokill
Banned
I'd say it's a combination of "hardcore" difficulty married to "casual" aesthetics. God, I hate those words, but I'll start there.
The aesthetics of the games are very pleasing to a wide audience. My wife, for example, loves the designs of the enemy characters in Mario games. She loves goombas, loves boos, thinks they're adorable and fun. However, she never plays Mario games, because they're too hard for her. She sticks to games like Assassin's Creed and such because they're easy to play and win at. Granted, she loves the aesthetics of the AC series too.
Demanding gameplay should attract "hardcore" gamers, and it does, but ultimately not all gamers are as "hardcore" as they think they are. A lot of people get the Souls games and don't come close to beating them, but say that they did, or say they love it because it comes with credibility. Gamers are into the aesthetic and are willing to try because it's a "cool" game to play, and it's okay to say your ass got kicked by the game.
Contrast that to DKC:TF. It's a difficult game to complete. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people on this forum cannot beat Champions Road in Super Mario 3D World. But saying you got your ass kicked by a Mario game isn't "cool." It's seen as being beaten by a kids game.
Whether people are willing to admit it or not, they are often conspicuous in their consumption. What you purchase or play or wear or whatever says something about you. Kids are the most obvious about it -- despite being kids, they don't want to be treated/thought of as childlike, so they push against games like Mario because they're supposedly "for kids." Adults like to pretend they get past this phase, but they don't. That's why they get "embarrassed" pulling out a handheld in public, or buying Mario games, or whatever. Bros have an image to keep up, and playing Mario games (and getting their ass beat by them) isn't helping that image.
You can see around here a similar thinking... a lot of people that won't touch Mario will rave about Rayman, simply because of the aesthetics. The Rayman games are categorically inferior platformers to (most) Mario games, but it doesn't matter, they're willing to try Rayman because it comes off as more "artsy" or "mature" in its approach. It doesn't seem as purely childlike.
Anyway, I don't think it's one thing or the other, but the confluence of those two things (a cute exterior on a difficult interior) that makes platformers a difficult sell nowadays. Considering platformers are some of the purest gameplay you can get also doesn't do well in the face of modern trends -- they aren't cinematic, they don't include skill trees, you don't get headshots, they don't feature gruff middle-aged white guys cracking wise or facing their demons.
The aesthetics of the games are very pleasing to a wide audience. My wife, for example, loves the designs of the enemy characters in Mario games. She loves goombas, loves boos, thinks they're adorable and fun. However, she never plays Mario games, because they're too hard for her. She sticks to games like Assassin's Creed and such because they're easy to play and win at. Granted, she loves the aesthetics of the AC series too.
Demanding gameplay should attract "hardcore" gamers, and it does, but ultimately not all gamers are as "hardcore" as they think they are. A lot of people get the Souls games and don't come close to beating them, but say that they did, or say they love it because it comes with credibility. Gamers are into the aesthetic and are willing to try because it's a "cool" game to play, and it's okay to say your ass got kicked by the game.
Contrast that to DKC:TF. It's a difficult game to complete. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people on this forum cannot beat Champions Road in Super Mario 3D World. But saying you got your ass kicked by a Mario game isn't "cool." It's seen as being beaten by a kids game.
Whether people are willing to admit it or not, they are often conspicuous in their consumption. What you purchase or play or wear or whatever says something about you. Kids are the most obvious about it -- despite being kids, they don't want to be treated/thought of as childlike, so they push against games like Mario because they're supposedly "for kids." Adults like to pretend they get past this phase, but they don't. That's why they get "embarrassed" pulling out a handheld in public, or buying Mario games, or whatever. Bros have an image to keep up, and playing Mario games (and getting their ass beat by them) isn't helping that image.
You can see around here a similar thinking... a lot of people that won't touch Mario will rave about Rayman, simply because of the aesthetics. The Rayman games are categorically inferior platformers to (most) Mario games, but it doesn't matter, they're willing to try Rayman because it comes off as more "artsy" or "mature" in its approach. It doesn't seem as purely childlike.
Anyway, I don't think it's one thing or the other, but the confluence of those two things (a cute exterior on a difficult interior) that makes platformers a difficult sell nowadays. Considering platformers are some of the purest gameplay you can get also doesn't do well in the face of modern trends -- they aren't cinematic, they don't include skill trees, you don't get headshots, they don't feature gruff middle-aged white guys cracking wise or facing their demons.
Linkstrikesback
Member
Open world games would be a terrible match for 3d mario. The very nature of an open world game means you have many long flat areas where no platforming is happening.
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
I don't know. Dark Souls proves that difficult games can sell.
I think it's these reasons: (my opinion of course)
1) Price: $50-60 for a platformer seems like a waste of money or too expensive to most people who are not fans of the genre.
2) Audience: Maybe people look at platformers and immediately see the "kiddie image" stigma attached to them?
3) Stuck in the past: with shooters, sports, and WRPGs pushing technology, online, mature themes, violence, etc. maybe people feel that platformers are old and dated because to most people, Donkey Kong, Sonic, and Mario are their childhood so they may respect it as that but not something they want to relive.
4) and finally, too frustrating and difficult.
I think it's these reasons: (my opinion of course)
1) Price: $50-60 for a platformer seems like a waste of money or too expensive to most people who are not fans of the genre.
2) Audience: Maybe people look at platformers and immediately see the "kiddie image" stigma attached to them?
3) Stuck in the past: with shooters, sports, and WRPGs pushing technology, online, mature themes, violence, etc. maybe people feel that platformers are old and dated because to most people, Donkey Kong, Sonic, and Mario are their childhood so they may respect it as that but not something they want to relive.
4) and finally, too frustrating and difficult.