NPD February 2009
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
I think the Wii's demographics are becoming more and more clear, especially with Lego games performing so well, and Force Unleashed on Wii selling more than the PS3 version.
thatdude90210
Regular
(for all consoles)
Not charting on a Top 10 (or whatever) should be no indicator of qualitity of a game, sucess of a game. Would a great Flameco album or a new masterpiece of classic/erudite music chart in the tops (at the very least in the short run)? Hardly that doenst mean it isnt great or sucesseful from a business POV (as long as it make more than the return), just that it doesnt have mass appeal.
This is true in almost all markts, there are many low profile bands, movies, comics, poets... that never made the tops. Taking an exemple of Marvels Comics, look at Annihilation story, it never made top 20, but every body will say it is a great great story, much better than others that did sell much better (top 10 at least, eg World War Hulk), and that does have a much bigger cultural impact than some of those storys (eg, new books, new caracters, new "cosmic marvel universe landscape" to name a few), everybody is happy. It isnt as true where the production value/sales etc... are so tied to the sucess of something, like big movies and games.
That is partially because today games are made almost solely on production values (if you dont invest a lot you can be sure it will not sell, if you invest, meybe you will see some of that money back), that is good for some games, bad for others. It seems that there isnt a space for niche games, that only a big production can be a good game... Everything else is just seens as a inferior things isntead of just a thing that only have appeal to a smaller audience.
Partially this is or falt because we also dont seem to value lower profille games that could invest less and sell by less.
Back on topic
To me it seems that it is great that there is a console here you can make a good game, sell "litle", and still make a proffit. Everybody is happy. It make a richer gaming scene.
Dev and publishers also seems to like as many will probably prefer taking less risks even if they make a lower proffit (Sega, EA, Activision...).
I would really like to see lower value games on 360/PS3, but a few things would need to change (MS/Sony fee, lower dev cost without being seen as inferior game, lower price...)
Fine. Everything's relative. Then we apply that to everything. Are Sony's first-party titles underperforming? Well, not from their own referential!
That's just silly. We're talking about titles that apparently sold well under 100k copies. Sure, Sega can go and say that this is within, or even exceeding expectations, but all that means is that expectations were very low. If these are Sega's expectations, then it speaks to what's the size of the 'traditional/core' audience they expect to find on the Wii. Which goes against what the 'core' Wii owners believe when it comes to the Wii's demographics, to say the least.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That is true. However, at least with regards to madworld, it seems to have been designed from the ground up for a limited sell through with the hopes that it might strike it big with the hardcore crowd. However, the design of it appears to be focuses on minimizing loss and maximizing the potential of a profit even if it sells less than 100k copies.
Just take the art direction for example. Texture work for that game must have been dirt cheap and probably completed in record time. That's less you have to pay a texture artist for example.
But the basic point remains true. You can't take the success of a low selling title that was designed to make money with low sales and then compare it to titles that had a lot more effort put into them and a lot more money sunk into developement. You're spot on there.
The Wii console remains a console mostly bought by those that aren't looking for the type of gaming experience they can get on a PS3 or X360.
Someone brought up Mario Kart earlier as an example of a "core" game. It isn't. It's a party game and a casual one at that. It caters to those types of people. Same goes for Wii Fit.
And, of course, as with anything there will be exceptions... But if someone is banking on the exceptions to make them money on the Wii, they are going to lose more money than they'll make, IMO.
And my pardons, obonicus, I started this replying to you, but went off on related tangents unrelated to your post.
Regards,
SB
The fact still remains that an action or sports title can break a million units on Wii. That not all of them do simply means that selling a million takes a different strategy.
A "core game," by contrast, comes from "Blue Ocean" marketing language. Your "core customers" are the customers that you've traditionally appealed to, the customers that have been around for a while. For Nintendo, its "core," and thus its "core games," are its franchise titles. MarioKart has been a staple for Nintendo for over a decade, more so than even Mario platformers. An "expanded market game" is a game that strongly appeals to marginal or new customers. This is different from a "casual game," which is a game that that a self-identified "hardcore gamer" has identified as being for babies and wimps only.
"Core game" does not mean "hardcore game." "Expanded market game" does not mean "casual game." Just because marketing has two categories for games and "hardcore gamers" cool do as well does not mean these two categories are the same.
Oh yes. Oh yes, it is. A "core game" is not the same as a "hardcore game." "Hardcore game" means "a game someone who calls himself a 'hardcore gamer' likes and thinks makes him a cut above those 'casual gamers.'" Usually, it means "has either blood or fast cars," but with Mega Man IX, we discovered that 2D nostalgia platformers are "hardcore," too.
A "core game," by contrast, comes from "Blue Ocean" marketing language. Your "core customers" are the customers that you've traditionally appealed to, the customers that have been around for a while. For Nintendo, its "core," and thus its "core games," are its franchise titles. MarioKart has been a staple for Nintendo for over a decade, more so than even Mario platformers. An "expanded market game" is a game that strongly appeals to marginal or new customers. This is different from a "casual game," which is a game that that a self-identified "hardcore gamer" has identified as being for babies and wimps only.
"Core game" does not mean "hardcore game." "Expanded market game" does not mean "casual game." Just because marketing has two categories for games and "hardcore gamers" cool do as well does not mean these two categories are the same.
Game sales by themselves does very little when it comes to defining the demographic of the Wii's userbase. It seems like a lot of the arguments concerning this topic involves the premise that population of gamers that own multiple consoles is very small to the point of insignificant. We do not know how big the population of gamers who own both a HD console and a Wii or all three consoles.
The Wii provides a very different experience than the HD consoles and therefore is a better overall complement to a HD console then the PS3 can be to the 360 or vice versa. Allowing for the scenario where a great deal of Wii/360, Wii/PS3 or Wii/360/PS3 owners are using their 360/PS3 to serve their needs for more traditional titles while using the Wii to experience the unique brand of gaming offered by Nintendo. Thereby you may have a significant population of Wii owners ignoring more traditional based games on the Wii, not because they are not attracted to those titles but because they have a 360 or a PS3, who better serve more important aspects of traditional based gaming such as graphics or multiplayer.
Wii game sales shows us that Wii gamers have a huge appetite for almost anything Nintendo but unless we have clearer picture of how many Wii owners own other consoles, we can't determine Wii owners appetite for more traditional based games.
The Wii provides a very different experience than the HD consoles and therefore is a better overall complement to a HD console then the PS3 can be to the 360 or vice versa. Allowing for the scenario where a great deal of Wii/360, Wii/PS3 or Wii/360/PS3 owners are using their 360/PS3 to serve their needs for more traditional titles while using the Wii to experience the unique brand of gaming offered by Nintendo. Thereby you may have a significant population of Wii owners ignoring more traditional based games on the Wii, not because they are not attracted to those titles but because they have a 360 or a PS3, who better serve more important aspects of traditional based gaming such as graphics or multiplayer.
Wii game sales shows us that Wii gamers have a huge appetite for almost anything Nintendo but unless we have clearer picture of how many Wii owners own other consoles, we can't determine Wii owners appetite for more traditional based games.
Early last year the percentage was below 5% (as I quoted earlier), according to NPD, for any owner that owns more than one console. Any subset of that, like gamers with all 3, or gamers with Wii + HD console is surely below that number. Even if we suppose that the number has changed dramatically in one year, what should we guess at? It's doubtful we're not talking about a fairly small minority.
To be honest, though, I doubt those numbers are entirely accurate myself because I suspect that the Nintendo faithful, the ones who stuck by the Gamecube also went with a Wii, and it seems like there's a fair number of those. But those folks would likely be among the early Wii adopters.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
And now you're completely redefining the "core" game meaning that I was originally replying to.
In which the "core" game mentioned by (I forget who now and don't feel like tracking it down again) was games that are certainly more prominent on X360/PS3/PC than on Wii. Or games that "core" gamers would be interested in.
If we go by how you interpret it, yes, each system has "core" games that it's userbase likes.
X360/PS3/PC all share the same types of "core" games in that case.
Wii on the other hand has a completely different type of "core" game.
How popular and how many racing "kart" type games do you see on X360/PS3/PC for example? How many party games? How many fitness games?
Likewise, how popular and how many "hardcore" FPS/RTS/Survival horror/beat 'em ups do you find on the Wii? And by popular meaning it would and should chart quite easily in the NPD top 20 (with the Wii's rather huge user base this should be cake). Heck even serious RPGs not made by Nintendo aren't hugely popular.
There's just no arguing that no matter how you want to define the types of games that are popular on various gaming platforms that the Wii is quite different from X360/PS3/PC. And most developers are still trying to get a handle on this and figure out how to appeal to the mass of Wii owners.
Sure you'll always have "something" that breaks out of the norm, but that "something" will almost never become part of the norm.
Regards,
SB
NPD reported 5% of the respondents reported owning multiple current gen consoles, not 5% of current gen console owners. 72% of the respondents reported played game, which was construed as 72% of all americans played games. If you construe that 5% figure to include of all who lives in the US that means roughly 15 million people own multiple current gen consoles.
Obviously NPD study isn't inclusive of all americans even though it may have been touted in these articles or by the study as such. 5% is way to high for the number of americans owning multiple current gen consoles. If 15 million (5% of 300 mil) people in the US owned multiple current gen consoles (40% owning all three and 60% owning two), then this group would represent the vast majority of the US current console gaming market.
Again, unless we have a clearer pictures of the number of multiple console owners than you can't determine the appetite Wii gamers have for more traditionally based games. Its equivalent to saying Toyota Camry owners don't enjoy after market customization of their cars just because of the low sales of after market parts for Toyota Camrys. Just because you own a Camry doesn't mean you don't sit in the garage all day fiddling with your 98 Toyota Supra with twin turbos.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a good point, I hadn't noticed that. Actually, if 2% own all three consoles in April 02, 2008, doesn't that exceed the PS3's LTD at that point? Vgchartzzzz (their late numbers are sorta okay) says 4.4 million PS3s sold by 04/06/2008 and 2% of the US' population is more than that.
But that presupposes that you don't want to use your Wii for hardcore games, which would amount to the same thing, wouldn't it? With the car example, buying an awesome muffler for your Camry would be mostly pointless without further investment, right? With consoles it's not quite the same -- the cost to enjoy a 'traditional' game on the Wii is just the cost of the game (which of course may include accessories).
Last edited by a moderator:
NPD is not very accurate because it depends on the affiliated companies providing reports but those not-affiliated will remain unknown unless there is a way to get reports on those numbers
The problem however is that the US is such a huge country its really hard to track this information even with all of the modern high tech we have, just getting people to do the surveys or even bothering to answer them is alot of effort and work.
Exactly its like trying to say that you would not be expected to buy Casey Parker movies as opposed to Tailor Rain or that you would spend all day fiddling with Jenna Haze storylines instead of getting Bangbus.
Im not saying noone wouldn't want to use their Wii for hardcore games, just that the Wii offers such as different experience that anyone who owns a Wii, under normal circumstances, wouldn't be too concern about the hardcore offerings if they had a 360/PS3 available that provides a superior experience in that regard especially when it came to cross platform titles.
Why would I want to buy a new awesome muffler for my Camry when I had a supe-upped Supra that Im still tricking out. A person who owns only a Camry is more likely to invest in tricking it out then someone who owns a Camry and a car more conducive to customization. Now you will have people who will trickout every car they own just like you have gamers who will buy every console and just about any game of note for all their systems, but that population should be smaller then the population of uses their consoles for different needs. A person who owns a Camry and a Supra is more likely to use the Camry for everyday travel while using the Supra for racing or weekend cruising.
But that's what I'm saying. If people who own Wii + other system will generally not use the Wii for the same sort of games they play on the other systems, that's equivalent to saying that the Wii userbase isn't interested in that sort of game.
Again, that's my point. Cars and consoles differ in that the barrier to entry is far higher on the former. Like you said, why would I buy the awesomest muffler for my Camry if I'm working on my Toyota? But I can't extend that to the Wii -- if an awesome game comes out for my Wii, all I have to do to get the full experience is buy it, there's no investment to overcome.
Your metaphor would work better if we were comparing the HD consoles, since there we have friends lists and trophies/achievements to contend with, since those represent some sort of investment.
True. But again, the Wii offers a different experience and if you own a Wii, how are you going to be hype by a more traditional based game on the Wii when you own a PS3 and 360, whose more traditional based offerings really outshine anything on the Wii.
Take a FPS for example. Im, I a 360/PS3/Wii owner, going to really hyped by videos or pics of Conduit when I've experienced KZ2, R2, Gears2, Halo3 and COD4? Is a marketing campaign similar to those used by high budget, highly hyped 360 and PS3 games really going to encourage me to be excited by this title? Unless it offers something non-traditional that I find really attractive then the lack of graphics is going to be a major detractor.
To put in perspective, if Conduit was a 360/PS3 and not a Wii game with the same level of graphics it has now would most care about its upcoming release? Conduit's attraction lies that it provides a game for a genre not heavily represent on the Wii with visuals beyond whats typically found on the Wii. However, its still a notch below whats found on the 360/PS3 and other than motion control its failed to show that it offers anything above whats found on the HD consoles. If Im a Wii only owner I might be attracted to Conduit but if I own both a Wii and a HD console showing me a bunch of Conduit videos and pics would be a little underwhelming.
True. So the lack of adoption for Call of Duty could, indeed, be a factor of multiplatform owners. But there's a number of innovative titles on Wii that also have failed to catch onto the audience.
The defense is that the appetite for these games is spread across time, which makes me ask the following questions: if HD consoles and the Wii share the same audience, why do we at the same time assume that they have radically different buying habits?
In defense of Conduit, it's not just motion control but IR pointer tech that makes Conduit somewhat appealing. I'm not really sold myself, but I do admire the effort they're putting in -- the degree of customizability of controls is something we don't even see on PC games anymore. But otherwise, yeah, the Conduit is facing an uphill battle. Bless SEGA's heart for trying, but I sorta envision SEGA's 2010 lineup having a lot more Sonic on Wii.
Game sales tell us the Wii demographic is somewhat different. But I don't believe the Wii's userbase and 360/PS3 are polar opposites of each other and that the lack of sales of more traditional based games is that there are a significant number of Wii owners who own 360/PS3 who practically ignore most of the traditional options found on the Wii.
To use another analogy (LOL), the Wii is a great Pizza restaurant and the 360/PS3 are great Burger joints. However, the Wii offers burgers on their menus albeit not as great at burgers found at PS3 or the 360 and the PS3 and 360 have pizza on their menus but not as tasty as the Wii's pizza. When these restaurants are isolated, people in the surrounding area will stop in a buy both burgers and pizzas from these restaurants but the Wii will tend to sell more pizzas then burgers and the 360/PS3 will sell more burgers then pizza. However, when restaurants are next door to each other people will use the Wii to serve almost all their pizza needs and the PS3/360 for their burger needs.
When you look at the isolated sales of either restaurants, you will see that the Wii sell mostly pizza and the 360/PS3 mostly burgers, but it will say almost nothing about the typical taste of the consumers if a relatively high number of people live near Wiis and 360/PS3s restaurants that are located next door to each other.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't redefine "core game," you did (actually, you still don't have a definition). "Core user" is very specific marketing terminology that predates this whole console kerfluffle. A lot of gamers simply assumed that since Nintendo was using the terms "core" and "expanded market" (which they got from Blue Ocean marketing literature) that they mean they same thing as "hardcore" and "casual," especially since "hardcore" has "core" as a root word. But they don't mean the same thing. They never did. "Hardcore" and "casual" are political terms that mean little more than "cool" and "dorky," while "core" and "expanded market" have to do with specific marketing strategies and demographics. Now, in order to not sound like raving fanboys, many gamers have stopped saying "hardcore" and started saying "core." But that's simply a misuse of terms.
I know this is coming as a shock to many gamers these days, but before the Wii there were actually several games that didn't have decapitations or shotguns! The "core market" is simply the market that's been buying the industry's product for a long time. That's a whole lot more than shooter fans. Maybe you haven't been following it, but the first Mario Kart game came out 17 years ago and since then has been a staple on every Nintendo platform. It's a more important franchise for Nintendo than even Legend of Zelda. Mario Kart is probably one of the best examples of a "core game" out there.
If you listen what Nintendo actually says, this wouldn't be so confusing. They've been very explicit in referring to their franchise titles as "core games." They know what they mean by that.
If you mean "violent game," say "violent game," not "hardcore game." Because playing violent games doesn't make you "hardcore."
