Post by: WindyMan on January 17, 2006, 05:24:35 AM
The NPD Group Reports Annual 2005 U.S. Video Game Industry Retail Sales
Video Game Industry Experiences Record-Breaking Year Thanks in Large Part to Significant Growth of Portable Market
PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 17, 2006--According to leading marketing information provider, The NPD Group, annual 2005 U.S. retail sales of video games, which includes console and portable hardware, software and accessories, saw sales of over $10.5 billion - a six percent increase over the $9.9 billion generated in 2004 and another industry record, exceeding the previous record-breaking $10.3 billion generated in 2002.
Sales set a new record thanks to the strong portable game market, which offset the declines in the console market. For the second year in a row, sales of portable software titles broke the $1 billion mark, generating $1.4 billion in the U.S. Portable game hardware, software and accessory categories saw respective dollar increases of 96 percent, 42 percent and 88 percent over 2004.
The console market did not fare as well, due in large part to hardware shortages, delays in the release of highly anticipated software titles and consumer anticipation of next-generation hardware. For 2005, console hardware, software and accessories saw respective dollar sales declines of three percent, 12 percent and eight percent compared to 2004.
While strong sales of hardware, software and accessories for the Nintendo DS and Sony PSP helped drive another record breaking year for the industry, the backbone of the portable market continues to be Nintendo's GBA. In 2005, GBA software represented 64 percent of total portable software units sold and 52 percent of total portable software dollar sales.
"The introduction of the Xbox 360 was a defining moment for the industry in 2005. However, it goes without saying that the full impact of next generation consoles on the consumer market won't unfold until later this year when Sony and Nintendo's video game consoles hit U.S. retail shelves," said Anita Frazier, industry analyst, The NPD Group. "The real story for 2005 was the incredible expansion of portable gaming. The GBA continued to realize stellar sales, and the introduction of the DS and PSP to the market brought older gamers to the portable format."
The NPD Group released a list of the top 10 games, ranked by units sold in the year 2005. Pokémon Emerald was the only Nintendo title to hit the list, ranking in second place behind the PS2 version of Madden 2006, and in front of Gran Turismo 4 and Madden Xbox.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 17, 2006, 06:23:44 AM
The non-gamer strategy seems to be working well for the DS in Japan but in North America there is really no sign that such a strategy is needed or that it would even work. The general public seems to be pretty content with how things work now.
Post by: OptimusPrime on January 17, 2006, 06:56:58 AM
The US market is the only exception, in Europe, DS has replaced the GBA also. so it's more like 65% of the gaming market has accepted it as the new GBA, not the out of context ripped assumptions you're making.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 17, 2006, 07:06:25 AM
I use it in the sense that Nintendo uses it: non-gamers are people who don't play games. They had never used the term when the GBA launched so it's a "gamer" system because it was designed primarily with gamers in mind. The DS is a "non-gamer" system because from the very beginning Nintendo designed the DS with the idea of attracting people who currently don't play games. The unique features were all added and designed to appeal to this group. Entire games have been designed specifically to attract these people. The Rev is also a "non-gamer" console because Nintendo has designed it with non-gamers in mind.
"The US market is the only exception, in Europe, DS has replaced the GBA also. so it's more like 65% of the gaming market has accepted it as the new GBA, not the out of context ripped assumptions you're making."
The US market is the most important gaming market in the world. To design a global strategy that works everywhere but there would be foolish.
Post by: Pale on January 17, 2006, 07:09:38 AM
Who really cares if Nintendo isn't catering to them? blah.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on January 17, 2006, 07:45:27 AM
Quote
They had never used the term when the GBA launched so it's a "gamer" system because it was designed primarily with gamers in mind. The DS is a "non-gamer" system because from the very beginning Nintendo designed the DS with the idea of attracting people who currently don't play games.
I think you're falling into a trap. Developing for "non-gamers" is now a public, official stance. However, casual, 2-minute gaming has been a goal for Nitnendo's handheld products for years. They're putting more effort behind their "non-gamer" strategy now, but that doesn't mean it is a brand new strategy. Nintendo is not going to pronounce the GBA for non-gamers because it is old hat now.
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 17, 2006, 08:19:07 AM
Also, Nintendo isn't saying that people don't play games, they're saying that they're trying to expand the market and let all people enjoy them. They also suggest that the market might collapse in on itself if it becomes too niche and hackneyed, but that's too unpredictable to guage properly.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 17, 2006, 08:24:11 AM
I see what you mean. I personally still see a difference. Although the Gameboy has had short quirky games to me they always felt like they were still for gamers. Like people who don't play games don't play Gameboy either. I always saw those games as a quick fix for the gamer on the go. The DS, to me, seems different. The goal is less to provide gaming on the go but more to get people who don't play games playing games.
Anyway the justification for this whole non-gamer strategy is that supposedly people are getting tired of gaming, yet this figure contridicts that claim. Thus I question the overall strategy because, at least in North America, the "problem" doesn't exist. I think there's a lot of risk in a strategy that offers a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the biggest game market in the world.
Nintendo's assumption is largely wrong and here's proof of that. That's scary because they're risking so much on something we can practically prove is factually incorrect. How well can the non-gamer strategy work in North America when the issue that made Nintendo think of the plan in the first place doesn't exist?
Post by: JonLeung on January 17, 2006, 08:41:00 AM
Isn't Nintendogs essentially a Tamagotchi? Take away stylus control, realism of the puppies, and that's what you have. But you wouldn't call it a toy. Would you? Couldn't it be a less common or new genre, like the "virtual pet" genre? "Animal simulation"? Something like that.
I guess you could call Animal Crossing an RPG - because you're playing a role that is your own persona. If we take the words as a clear-cut definition then it actually is more of an RPG than, say, the Final Fantasy games, which have predetermined personas. Or, hey, create a new genre - "life simulation". They have dating sims, so why not living sims?
Just because Nintendogs and Animal Crossing don't have goals is a lame reason to call them non-games. Actually, they do - maybe it's just that they're still fun to play even if you don't have Obedience Trial trophies or a complete exhibits, etc. But because a game is fun even when you're not "accomplishing" anything doesn't make it any less of a game...I thought the point of a game is to have fun, so you'd think it'd be more of a game than any other if you're enjoying it whether you are able to "win" or not? If you play soccer and everyone forgets to keep score are you suddenly playing a non-game? Okay, maybe that's not a good example...whatever. Maybe I just don't like the term so easily slapped onto unusual or uncommon genres.
And I've mentioned this before...I don't know how many non-gamers are actually scooping up all these DS games. You still usually hear the PSP mentioned in casual conversation a heck of a lot more than the DS. I'd guess that what's actually happening is that DS gamers are buying a lot of DS games. I already have as many DS games as Game Boy (including GBC/GBA) games in much less time. And there are a number I've meant to try and haven't even picked up!
Post by: denjet78 on January 17, 2006, 10:03:05 AM
The more I read your replies the more I come to understand that you're just looking for any reason, even if you have to twist it out of something that really doesn't mean anything, to pick on Nintendo for.
You can only go so far with "constructive criticism" before it becomes simple bad mouthing.
Do you even play video games anymore or are you only here because the Nintengo ate your baby?
You know, I don't think I've ever read a single post by you where you say anything nice about Nintendo. The closest you seem to be able to come is "well at least they didn't screw THAT up!" If that's the only way that you can see them, then why the hell are you even here? Nintendo already has enough descenters for the most idiotic of reasons. Why don't you just go join the others and sing the praises of Sony and/or MS while the industry goes down the toilet because you certainly don't seem to have any for Nintendo.
Now I'm going to go play some games and have fun.
F-U-N
Remember that? That's what we're all here for... supposedly. Not image or graphics or "cool" or even marketing strategies, but because the games are fun.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 17, 2006, 10:30:08 AM
So if I criticize Nintendo then I automatically must praise Sony or MS? I don't praise them very often. They have some good business ideas but for the most part I think they're severely hurting the industry and their all-in-media approach to consoles is pretty stupid. I like Nintendo a lot. They make some of my favourite games and they seem to be the only console maker that actually cares about gaming.
As a fan I'm just frustrated that Nintendo is currently stuck in a hole that they themselves largely dug due to some really odd decisions. And I think that their plan for getting out of the hole is just going to dig themselves further. I don't like this non-gamer plan. I don't think it's going to work. And if it does work I'm screwed anyway because I don't really like Nintendo's non-gaming efforts. I just don't find them that enjoyable. I'm concerned that Nintendo's not going to pay attention to the existing fanbase if a new group of gamers brings them new success. Or that they still will but their focus will be greatly reduced.
Nintendo has changed a fair bit in the last few years and I don't really relate to the newer Nintendo as I did to the Nintendo I first became a fan of. But I don't relate to Sony or MS much at all. So I'm concerned about the possible outcomes of Nintendo's strategy. If they fail I relate to no console maker but if they succeed by changing into a different type of company altogether then I'm in the same boat.
It is because I am a Nintendo fan that I'm critical of decisions they make that I think are a mistake. It's just unfortunate that they've been making a lot of them lately and the current wasteland of the Cube library puts me into a particularly surly mood. If I didn't like Nintendo I wouldn't care if I thought they were risking their future on a plan that is not designed with the North American market in mind. What do I care if companies I don't give two sh!ts about screw up?
Post by: Guitar Smasher on January 17, 2006, 11:25:04 AM
You're misrepresenting these systems. The DS is not a 'non-gamer' system. It is a system designed to appeal to both gamers and non-gamers. The point is that the new features will take current style games to new levels, while also having new quasi-games like Nintendogs and Brain Training for those who previously weren't into video games. The main launch title was Mario 64 DS. I wouldn't consider that a non-gamer game. Clearly it is an 'everyone' system (or as close to one as has ever existed).
The revolution isn't a non-gamer system either. If it were, then there'd be no point for the Classic Download service. Again, there will be apps that appeal to traditional gamers, apps that appeal to non-gamers, and apps that'll appeal to both groups. Another 'everyone' system.
Post by: King of Twitch on January 17, 2006, 11:42:41 AM
Post by: Nosferat2 on January 17, 2006, 12:41:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
Ian, over 4 million people bought Madden '06.
Who really cares if Nintendo isn't catering to them? blah.
?
I think you were taking a shot a Madden 06? Am i correct.
Anyway 4 million buyers of 06 is precisely the reason im generally with Ian on this one. Gamers are buying games but Nintendo is aiming at non-gamers. This has to do with my talks in other threads about Nintendo focusing on Japan instead of the US. Is Ian wrong in thinking this is backwards thinking on Nintendos part, like i do? I think not. The non-gamer approach is fine if Nintendo had a strangle hold on the console market like it does in the handheld arena. Its a way to increase market share. But when Nintendo does not have the console market on lock, which is blatantly obvious, this is not a smart move. Nintendo needed to get the Console market back in its pocket before trying to expand. And to do this they need to focus on the gamers here in the US.
Nintendo cannot survive on Japans market alone. Europe is almost negligable(i think). Its needs the US, since we are the highest consumers of video game software. Look at Microsoft, the Xbox excelled as a new console with absolutley no love from Japan. Microsoft focused on what gamers want in the US and flourished. At least with respect in not dieing out. Now with the 360 its trying to expand its marketshare into Japan. Smart i think. Cause once MS gets love in Japan it can then focus on the causals and non-gamers. Trust me if MS started with an agenda to get the Non-gamers first, the 360 would not be here. Nintendo needs to get back the US and then worry about expanding to Non-gamers and other unconventional markets. They can easily take the risk in the Handhelds, but in the console market, i assure they cannot. Frankly, Nintendo just needs to stop being arogant, racist, nationalist, retarded, prideful or what ever it is they are afflicted with and pay a lot more attention to the US gamer market.
I love Nintendo to death and dont take this as a diss to them, but these are just my opinions based on adequate observations. Nintendos preoccupation with Japan will be the death of them(with respect to consoles*). Though knowing the Japanese, i bet its a pride issue. Im sure it sucks for NIntendo to be second in Japan to the PS2, so i bet they are focusing so hard in Japan to recapture it. Problem with this is that its good for Japanese Nintendo fans but the US Nintendo fan gets shafted. Remember NINTENDO, Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins....
*i care less if they survive in the handheld arena. In my eyes Nintendo is dead once they are no longer in the console market.
Post by: animecyberrat on January 17, 2006, 01:40:38 PM
Again I do not call Nintendogs a NON game and have stated this many times, its a pet simulator, or SIM, to not call it a game cuz its a sim you would have to say Sim City, Roller Coaster Tycoon, THE SIMS, and many others, arent real games, and thats a laod of #&*^ and your a EFFING FOOL if you beleive that, period!
Nintendo DS sells so well becasue of the GAMES! Mario 64 and Mario Kart DS and Castlevania DS are some of the better selling DS games, and guess what tehy are TRADITIONAL games. Animal Crossing for GC was still called a game when it came out, so why all of a sudden is its sequel NOT a game!? Explain that.
Nintendo needs to spend more time trying to make more traditional games, mostly to set an example for 3rd party developers AND to give thier fans the games that nobody else will.
Revolution however is different, I do see how they need to focus more on the US market and I think they are taking the right steps for that, so I disgree there that tehy dont care about US, otherwise they wouldnt be so focused on ONline or teh 1st person shooters which greatly appeal to US gamers.
The 1 area US gamers also eat up more than Japanese gamers is Sports games, specificaly Football, and Nintendo hasnt made any steps to make thier system good for sports games, PS2 had many advantages there, partly online because playing Madden online agaist a full size team of real people is far more appealing than four people. Also teh Ps2 versions also had the Multitaps which allowed up to 8 and some games more players, Nintendo didnt do anything for that, not that I personaly care but I know way to many sports fans who are also hard core gamers who said that was a big reasosn they chose ps over GC.
Rev has potenial i suppose with the controller and such, but they also need to desgin the games to be functional and fun, also sports games need to be online since rev will only support 4 players unless they make sports games that can be LANed or whatever to add more players, wich with them including the local netwroking of multiple systems with 1 game disk taht will appeal to many people if exploited.
I think Nintendo is on the right track with the REV but I still fear if they put to much emphasis on non gamers they will lose the gamers and then they will shrink even more in public eye and market share. after while they will eventualy start losing too many fans and thier profits will decrease with that.
Post by: IceCold on January 17, 2006, 02:13:57 PM
If after all this time you still believe that the DS is catering too much to the non-gamer, then you're a lost cause. As I said before, nearly every franchise that sold GBAs (that's not a non-system, is it?) has been translated successfully to the DS. And they're better games at that! Castlevania, Advance Wars, Mario Kart, Sonic, Kirby.. Mario Kart DS wasn't even a port! The only major franchise left is Pokemon. Well, and a 2D Metroid, but we should be getting both of those soon enough. And remember the new IPs too..
Post by: Mario on January 17, 2006, 02:20:40 PM
By the way I have Brain Training in my DS right now (demo version), I think it's fantastic. It still contains the thrill of playing a normal videogame (you compete for high scores), yet you're using your brain to solve puzzles that you might actually encounter in the real world! I've memorized my entire times tables so I can get higher times in the maths "quick quiz".
Quote
Nintendo cannot survive on Japans market alone. Europe is almost negligable(i think). Its needs the US, since we are the highest consumers of video game software.
Europe actually should be bigger than the US. DS is doing better there than the US. PS2 has sold more in Europe than in the US, if you're about to sling the nongamer BS on me.
It's hard to say that the non-gamer strategy isn't working in the US, since the non-games that are making this strategy work in Japan (Brain Trainings) aren't available there yet. Also remember the highest selling DS game in the US is Nintendogs. It's only natural for more revenue to be made this year with three new major systems on the market. I think 2006 is going to be one of the biggest gaming years ever, if PS3 and Rev do make it out on time.
Also, while the game industry "increased" via money made, less systems and games were sold. PSP and 360's ridiculous prices can attribute to this.
Post by: KnowsNothing on January 17, 2006, 02:27:14 PM
Post by: IceCold on January 17, 2006, 03:00:33 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on January 18, 2006, 06:50:38 AM
This makes a lot of sense. The non-gamer market is risky. There's no guarantee that those that don't play games now will ever be interested. With "real" gamers Nintendo is on thin ice. They've screwed up enough times that the average gamer really doesn't trust them. Focusing on non-gamers means that their focus on existing gamers is going to shrink. That's just a fact. Before they were putting 100% of their resources towards gamers so now, even if they put in a lot of effort to support both groups, they're not going to be putting in as much effort as they did before. It's impossible. The problem is that right now they can't even please existing gamers. So how can they please both groups when they've been struggling to support one? Nintendo is risking losing parts of the traditional market to go after a new one that may not care at all. They can't afford to have that plan fail. They have no safety net.
The DS has improved greatly in providing games for existing gamers. But at first it SUCKED at it. Nintendo fortunately has enough presence in the portable market that people were willing to cut them some slack and get their act together. That luxury doesn't exist on the Rev. A safe assumption is that if Nintendo gives anyone the slightlest excuse to not care they won't. Why wait for Nintendo to get their act together when they never did on the N64 or Cube? If the Rev started slow like the DS did people would assume that it was going to be another flop. If Nintendo actually delivers on a traditional console first and ends a generation on a high note then people would be more willing to cut them some slack if they tried something different. People initially gave the N64 a chance despite the cartridges because Nintendo delivered so well on the SNES. The PS2 had a horrible lineup for the first couple months but people gave it a chance because they had faith in Sony.
Deep down though I think Nintendo is going after the non-gamers because they think they can't compete anymore so they have to make up their own market. I strongly disagree with that as I think Nintendo would do much better if they just stopped doing stupid sh!t. But they're both very stubborn and very out-of-touch. To successfully compete against Sony and MS they would have to admit they screwed up and would have to realize what they're doing wrong in the first place. Nintendo is so delusional these days that they probably can't do that. Though that still doesn't make their plan a good one. It just explains their actions.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 18, 2006, 07:13:18 AM
I see reasons to dispute this claim. Nintendo's philosophy has always been "games for EVERYONE" and resulted in games being much simpler and easier than what you'd expect. Sometimes they overshoot their goal in terms of complexity and take a step back in the next iteration of the series (There were too many items in SMB3 => SMW is back to three plus Yoshi, there were too many moves in SM64 => SMS has only a few of them, Zelda 2 had too many RPG elements => Zelda 3 is back to being an action-adventure). Nintendo has ALWAYS kept complexity very low which is part of the appeal of Nintendo games. Nintendo makes a fighting game? Well, there's no big button sequences to remember, all attacks are direction + A or B. If they were targeting those at gamers, don't you think they'd make more complicated games?
Targeting non-gamers merely means they're not going to assume the user is proficient with current control schemes or conventions (example: My mom plays CSI, finds a roulette board where card suits appear at the bottom each time you click a number. She thinks she has to figure it out, I tell her she's supposed to get all four hint notes (she was surprised that I knew there were four) and combine it that way). My first Zelda game was Link's Awakening, I got stuck at the very first puzzle because I didn't know you can move those black blocks around. Now I just blow through Zelda games because I know all their conventions. Someone who doesn't know all these gaming conventions would be utterly confused by puzzles like that.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 18, 2006, 07:47:03 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on January 18, 2006, 07:50:02 AM
I've always seen it not as literally everyone but just everyone who plays games. Nintendo talks about targeting people like our grandmas and stuff, people who have never played games before. Nintendo talks about how the current controller is intimidating. The Rev controller is more or less an NES pad with motion control shaped like a remote. Nintendo has never simplified that far before. I find Nintendo games in the past at the very least always expected you to "get" gaming. Gaming is something that some people just can't wrap their head around. Nintendo games always assumed that you at least know enough to not jump into an endless pit without being explicitly told to or not touch things that look dangerous or know that when you get stuck you should try all the different moves or items at your disposal. So thus they were putting 100% of their effort towards gamers because you had to at least be at the level where you had that understanding of how to play games.
Now Nintendo wants to go after people that don't "get" gaming. That's a different group entirely. No one really has every gone after people that aren't interested. It's somewhat of an oxymoron. How do you make games for people who don't like games? How do those "games" stay as games if the very fact that it is a game is why those people aren't interested in the first place? How do you make games that satisfies people who don't like games and people who do like games without either group feeling their experience is compromised?
Beforehand you had to like games to enjoy Nintendo games. Thus they were serving gamers 100%. Now they have a group that likes games and one that doesn't and they're trying to please both. Thus they are no longer serving gamers 100%.
Post by: Artimus on January 18, 2006, 07:59:44 AM
The DS clearly shows Nintendo is interested in expanding to get everyone, not switching focus to get everyone. For every Brain Training (which takes like NO resources to make) there's about 10 'gamer' games.
There isn't an argument against that. Ian, you lose! NO GAMES FOR YOU.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 18, 2006, 08:38:36 AM
Well when I say Nintendo needs to provide more options I mean within the current market. When I started talking about that the idea of targeting people who don't play games at all never even remotely entered my brain. Why would it? It's such an odd idea.
I don't really the see the DS as providing more options. If anything I think it provides less. There's still the "every game for everyone" approach only now not every game is even for gamers. Now there's "every gamer could like this" games and "every person period could like this" games. Nintendo has long had the problem where their library seems diluted because with every game they're trying to cast their net so wide. It's hard to find those more specific games that seem designed just for you. Everything is very mass market. Now the net is even wider so things get even more diluted. Now Nintendo isn't just making "every person period could like this" games and I think it's great that they do still make stuff that clearly is for people who are already interested in games. But the options still really aren't there. It's the same diluted "everybody" lineup only now there are also some games that are even more diluted because they're made for non-gamers as well. Anyone who found Nintendo didn't offer enough variety before is going to find they're offering even less now.
Now on the DS there is pretty healthy support which helps things A LOT. The Rev won't have that. Nintendo still hasn't learned that to truly have an "everybody" lineup they have to have different games that interest different people. They're still doing the "every game for everybody" routine.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 18, 2006, 08:49:13 AM
Really? I can't seem to find a definition of "to get gaming" that would include all of Nintendo's current games and no non-gamer-only games. Remember, Nintendo made games like Duck Hunt.
Nintendo games always assumed that you at least know enough to not jump into an endless pit without being explicitly told to or not touch things that look dangerous or know that when you get stuck you should try all the different moves or items at your disposal. So thus they were putting 100% of their effort towards gamers because you had to at least be at the level where you had that understanding of how to play games.
Is that "being a gamer" or just "having common sense"? We know from our experience that dropping into deep holes isn't desirable and that spiky things hurt. Some gaming conventions were rather incomprehensible (e.g. "take damage if you touch a mouse or an ant") but most are based on reality to a certain degree and need only a minimum of common sense to see.
Now Nintendo wants to go after people that don't "get" gaming. That's a different group entirely.
I seem to understand Nintendo's definition of "non-gamer" as "someone without gaming experience that is intimidated by the complexity found in most games today". I mean, these days you have games that have two or three meanings for every button on the controller and a manual that doesn't even mention half of them. I'm sure the term "nongamer" refers to what is usually called a casual gamer in the mainstream press (someone who plays Bejewelled or Solitaire) without sounding like "someone who plays Madden and GTA only" to us.
If I'm right we're talking about the tens (or hundreds?) of millions of people that keep companies like Popcap Games profitable. People who appreciate quick, simple videogames, preferrably those that can be controlled with only a mouse (or the rod) and have very simple, self-explainatory interfaces. MS is targeting those too, they're offering a wide range of casual/non gamer games on Live Arcade but the controller is probably enough to scare those away already. The price is another matter.
I'll take my father as an example: My parents used to play videogames on their old Atari VCS and a few times on the C64 but they don't play any modern console games. My father goes for games like Bejewelled, Tetris, Samegame and Solitaire now. The only game on my GC he played himself was Mean Bean Machine from the Sonic Mega Collection. He's confused by all the buttons on modern consoles and the complexity of modern games (plus he doesn't like violent games). My mother as well, she plays mostly point-and-click adventure games, though she only buys them at bargain bin prices. What do all those have in common? Simple interfaces and rules. You don't need more than one directional input (joystick, mouse) and a button.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 18, 2006, 09:21:05 AM
That makes sense. But no one who just plays stuff like that is really considered a "gamer". Not by anyone with any real interest in gaming anyway. To most gamers those kind of games, well, don't count. A console could have 1000 games but if they were all like that gamers wouldn't be interested at all. They're not considered "real" games. You can argue what defines a game all you want but that perception exists. So any effort Nintendo puts towards games like that is not effort being put towards gamers because gamers aren't interested in that stuff. That type of game is in this odd little niche where anyone who actually likes games isn't interested and anyone who is interested isn't interested in anything beyond that.
Plus those games are FREE. To play them you just need a computer and the internet which most people would get anyway for other purposes. Actually spending $100+ for a system to play those types of games on is another matter altogether. Would your dad pay money to buy a system to play those types of games? The people who pay money for specialized videogame systems aren't interested in those types of games and the target demographic for those types of games already has access to similar games for free. I'm worried that Nintendo is trying to sell fridges to eskimos while at the same time diverting some of their resources away from the market that has brought them their success.
In Japan the story's different because Nintendo's theory about people getting bored of gaming is reasonably accurate. Though in my mind a solution to that problem is just innovation which would probably work everywhere as opposed to using innovation to dumb games down for the Bejeweled crowd.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 18, 2006, 10:07:37 AM
Those nongamers are willing to spend some cash, remember how well those Atari emulator joysticks sold? They were afforedable and offered games a nongamer could grasp.
Would your dad pay money to buy a system to play those types of games?
Probably not but if I let him play with the Rev* perhaps he'll buy his own games for it? Since almost every household has a videogame system of sorts already it's not that far-fetched to think that most non-gamers would have someone with a Rev living under the same roof. If this catches on, parents won't buy a Rev to silence their kids (or only do so initially) and start using it themselves, generating profit through game sales for Nintendo.
*= Not that I'm willing to share my consoles with my father, he'd hog it all day and mess everything up.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 18, 2006, 10:29:04 AM
Post by: wandering on January 18, 2006, 09:06:33 PM
I think KDR has already said this well, but I think it's worth repeating: targeting everybody (and yes, that's who Nintendo is targeting here. Let's get off this 'non-gamer' buzzword Nintendo has started using for a second.) is not a risky strategy. In fact, it's the only strategy that has ever been truly successful in the marketplace. Everyone played Donkey Kong. Everyone played Nintendo. Everyone plays playstation. Everyone plays GameBoy. ....And no, the "everyone who are gamers" line doesn't fly, because both Sony and especially Nintendo created gamers...they wouldn't have florished if they hadn't.
I'm sorry you feel like, in the past, you were a part of some special group of people who 'got' gaming while the rest of the world was incapable. But Nintendo never made products for a special group. They made games that drew people in who had never been interested in gaming before. They specialised in giving complex experiences through simple and intuitive interfaces that everyone could get into.
The fact is, gaming can be for everybody, just as much as movies can be. I'm sorry you feel that everyone who doesn't game are braindead morons who lack all manner of curiosity and problem-solving skills. Nintendo and I choose to believe that people who don't game might do so for different reasons. Reasons like the fact that modern controllers are about as befuddling to a non-gamer as the controls in the cockpit of an airplane are to a non-pilot.
As Nintendo becomes an increasingly niche company, what would you have them do? 'Try harder' without changing in any signifigant way, I suppose. Personally, I don't think that'll cut it. How do expect Mario and Zelda to compete in the face of Jak and Daxter and Grand Theft Auto? Modern games are huge, violent, expensive. And Nintendo could certainly try to play on that playing field, as you suggest they should. But they aren't interested in that. They're interested in making people interested in the kind of games Nintendo likes. And to to do that, they need to reach out to people in a different way. As other companies make their games more realistic and more complex, Nintendo will blaze a new trail by trying to make their games as fun and accesible as possible. Sorry if you don't want that. Sorry if you want gaming all to yourself.
...Me personally, I want as many people getting interested in Nintendo games as possible.
Post by: IceCold on January 18, 2006, 09:49:46 PM
I second this, because it's the truth, Ian. My parents don't play games. My dad used to play the NES a bit, but after that, I don't recall him playing much at all. So, I was playing Wind Waker once, and I was stuck on one of the puzzles. I tried everything I could think of, but it didn't work. Then, in came my dad, and he saw me playing for a few seconds. Then he suggested I do something. I did it and the puzzle was solved.. This has happened on many occasions; I seriously believe that if my dad played games he would love adventure games. His brain just works in the way that's perfect for an adventure game. But, he doesn't game, and guess why? Because it's too complicated for him.. Also, the few times he's played my DS, he's LOVED it. I showed him the minigames for SM64DS, and got him hooked. Then, he even was interested to play Kirby and liked it. So wandering's right about this also; Nintendo can make gamers out of non-gamers, and then they will even try traditional games..
The only thing I'm worried about is how Nintendo is going to convince nongamers to pay a substantial amount for a Revolution and games. Why would they care now if they haven't been interested in it for years, or never have been? Even if Nintendo gets a game that would draw them in if they played it, they would still need to market the system to that audience. Which will be extremely tough..
Post by: King of Twitch on January 18, 2006, 10:39:32 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 18, 2006, 11:33:26 PM
Post by: Mario on January 19, 2006, 01:54:50 AM
Brain Training isn't a non-game.
Electroplankton isn't a non-game.
This is a non game
Post by: Infernal Monkey on January 19, 2006, 02:29:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Post by: Pryopizm on January 19, 2006, 05:49:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Infernal MonkeyQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
On this particular point, I agree with Ian.
Seriously, who can argue with that?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 19, 2006, 07:32:30 AM
That's not what I meant though I can see why what I said could interpreted that way. "Getting games" isn't just understanding how to play or having the skills to do well. Part of it is finding it fun. I'm good at math but I don't enjoy it so I don't intentionally do anything involving math for fun. Nintendo thinks that people who don't game don't because they find it complicated or intimidating. I think they don't because they're just not interested in what's available. When you're really interested in something typically you make an effort to get into it.
My brother used to play games a lot and now he doesn't. It isn't because he finds the controller too complicated or intimidating. It's because there just aren't enough games being made that he's interested in. He still likes racing games like Mario Kart and F-Zero. I hand him the Cube controller and he figures it out in ten seconds. Conker's Bad Fur Day had controls that were much more complicated then any NES or SNES game. But he figured them out because he enjoyed the multiplayer so much. He likes visceral action games where he just has to react to what's happening and doesn't have to think about things too much. Contra is pretty much his favourite game. His lack of interest is a result of games like that being less common now. A lot of games focus more on puzzle solving and long stories and long quests. He wants games with no save capabilities, that require reflexes to play, and that are designed to be played though in one sitting but are hard enough that there's no way in hell you'll ever beat it on your first try.
I think the problem is more the complexity of games themselves rather than the controller. The controller is a tool and it's a developer's responsibility to design a games controls to be easy to use. PC games have used the same setup since the beginning. But DOOM is still easier to get into then most current PC games. It's the same amount of buttons but one design is streamlined and simplified while another is overly complex. I don't like games that make thing complicated for no reason. That's why I love Zelda but pretty much hate any other "adventure" game that adds all sorts of RPG stats and stuff to make the game more complicated for no reason.
I don't think touchscreens and motion control are the answer to getting anyone who used to like games back. I think the solution is for Nintendo to make their games streamlined to avoid unnecessary complexity. They already are very good at that. Most other developers suck at it but I think the best way for Nintendo to improve that is with influence and they have more influence if they have more market share. I think the key to improving their market share is to stop nailing their feet to the ground with inane short-sighted decisions and restrictions and to make some more new franchises instead of just milking Mario over and over. People who weren't born in 1988 need their own Nintendo characters to identify with. And that doesn't even require Nintendo to use lots of violence and guns. They just need to expand their palette a bit; work in genres they wouldn't before and use different styles then the super fun happy EAD style they rely on a lot. Making the same Mario spinoffs but with motion control isn't going to do anything.
As for those that just plain aren't interested in games they're never going to be so it's a waste of time to bother. If they were interested in games they would make some effort to get into them. Some people just decide they don't like something and you just can't get them to even try.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 19, 2006, 08:40:50 AM
They probably mean "doesn't game" as in "doesn't give money to us".
A lot of games focus more on puzzle solving and long stories and long quests. He wants games with no save capabilities, that require reflexes to play, and that are designed to be played though in one sitting but are hard enough that there's no way in hell you'll ever beat it on your first try.
Yet another reason they should finally hire Kenta Cho and give him the ten million dollars that interviewer mentioned:
Q: If you had the chance to design a 10 million dollar game, what would you do with it, or would you turn it down?
A: I'll try to create a 10 million dollar game that ends within 3 minutes. A simpler and shorter one with the greatest music and greatest graphics.
[..]
Q:Mobile technology (PDA's and phones as well as the Nintendo DS and PSP) seem like perfect outlets for your games (short bursts of fun). If given a dev kit for Nintendo or Sony's, would you consider making games for them?
A:I want to get a dev kit especially for Nitendo DS. Dual screen shmup playing with a stylus may be fun.
Post by: wandering on January 19, 2006, 09:41:45 PM
Quote
That's not what I meant though I can see why what I said could interpreted that way. "Getting games" isn't just understanding how to play or having the skills to do well. Part of it is finding it fun. I'm good at math but I don't enjoy it so I don't intentionally do anything involving math for fun. Nintendo thinks that people who don't game don't because they find it complicated or intimidating. I think they don't because they're just not interested in what's available. When you're really interested in something typically you make an effort to get into it.
Ah. I'm understanding your position a little better now. But I don't at all agree with it. I bet people said the same kind of thing when graphical operating systems were first introduced. I'm sure there were people who thought people who were interested in computing would take the time to learn the simple textual commands. But, as soon as computers became graphical and intuitive, the computing business exploded.
In my opinion, lowering the barrier for entry for a certain activity by making it easier/more understandable/more affordable/more attention-grabbing almost always leads to more interest, and is generally a good idea.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 20, 2006, 06:42:01 AM
That makes sense and I think the GUI analogy is perfect. But I don't think motion control is easier. In fact I think it sounds harder. Waving a wand around is going to require more precision then just pushing a digital button. I see the remote more as a novelty to attract attention from people who don't game. In a way it's kind of like R.O.B. only it's about a million times more useful. I just don't see it as making things easier. To me it seems more like those voice activitated phone systems that someone thought would be easier to use then the "to do this push 1" systems. Sounded like a good idea in theory but there's so many variables in what the user can do and how the computer can interpret them that it is actually harder to use. I'm concerned that the remote will have similiar issues because who I think is a vertical sword strike might be interpreted differently by the computer. But if I just have to push B it's pretty much impossible for it to be interpreted incorrectly.
To me the remote seems more like making a GUI and getting rid of the keyboard altogether with the idea being that the mouse is good enough. Nintendo is removing proven technology for a new method that is unproven.
The idea of lowering the barrier is good. I just don't think what Nintendo is doing to lower the barrier is the right thing to do. I think they're either going to compromise their games to make them fit a different standard or make the controls needlessly harder to use in order to fit the new controller to current game design.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 20, 2006, 07:36:58 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 20, 2006, 08:37:29 AM
Does using an analog stick require more precision than pushing a d-pad? If precision isn't the goal of the game and it's properly implemented, no.
BTW, I asked my father on games he'd play, he said he doesn't want to use a joystick.
Post by: wandering on January 23, 2006, 07:22:25 PM
Quote
That makes sense and I think the GUI analogy is perfect. But I don't think motion control is easier. In fact I think it sounds harder. Waving a wand around is going to require more precision then just pushing a digital button. I see the remote more as a novelty to attract attention from people who don't game.
...
I'm concerned that the remote will have similiar issues because who I think is a vertical sword strike might be interpreted differently by the computer. But if I just have to push B it's pretty much impossible for it to be interpreted incorrectly.
...
Again I must disagree. First off, I think you have the wrong idea about how the controller will be utilised. All of the demos that were shown had the on-screen whatever matching the movements of the revmote exactly....different movements weren't really 'interpreted' as different in-game actions in the way that you imply.
Let's take your example of the sword fighting game. Instead of pushing a button, or a button + a direction on the analog stick to take a sword swipe, you have a virtual sword that follows the every movement of your hand instead. Doesn't that sound easier?
...More to the point, let's say a non-gamer walks in on you playing this sword fighting game. Now, if you're playing with a traditional controller, you are, to the non-gamer, in another world. He could no sooner understand how you were controlling the virtual sword than he could understand what 2 people were saying if they were conversing in sign-lanuage (assuming he didn't know sign lanuage.) But, if he walks in on you swiping away with the revmote, he can instantly see how to play. The barrier would be gone, and a once-closed activity would be an open one.
