Topic: Are There Enough Core Gamers On Wii U? (Opinion)

^
Now lets look at the best selling games on PS3 lol

The problem here is that you are equating mature core gamers with the mature mass market. It's similar to saying that all 20M+ people who bought NSMBWii are Nintendo gamers.

Core gamers are a small percentage of the people who buy consoles and video games are core gamers (I'd probably say %20) . People who actively seek out games they are interested in. People who watch press conferences, look up trailers, and keep up with gaming news. They play games like Ico, Lost Odyssey, Mirror's Edge, Xenoblade Chronicles, and Rayman Legends

Most people who play games are part of a mass market. These aren't casuals per say, but the games they know about are the ones that generate buzz, the ones that are either commonly talked about or that are commonly advertised, or the ones they see their friends playing. They play games like Mario Kart, CoD, Destiny, Halo, and FIFA

Nintendo has traditionally done very well with the young mass market and the female mass market. Games like Nintendogs, Mario Kart, and New Super Mario Bros all tap into these groups. Where they are weak is the mature mass market. Even if a Nintendo console has COD and Splinter Cell: Blacklist, the mass market doesn't know that. It's not advertised, so why should they? Games like Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101, and Monster Hunter simply don't get the massive buzz that attracts this mass market.

You have to be really knowledgeable about either Nintendo systems or about games in general to be aware that the Wii U has a good share of mature games. And when you get into those groups, you start seeing the people who buy such a large quantity of games that just the titles you mentioned simply aren't enough.

So it's not just about having mature games, it's about how your system's library appeals to different large markets.

Did he actually say that? He mentioned that it skipped the Wii but I don't think he mentioned it would actually definitely arrive on Wii U like Assassin’s Creed 3, ZombiU, Mass Effect 3, "and other core titles coming to the console".

Thank you so much for bringing attention to this topic, i have tried to convey that same message many times and been branded an Arm-chair analyst and a traitor for daring to question Nintendo and the Wii U. I love SkywardLink98`s signature "I love Nintendo, that's why I criticize them so harshly", i do the same thing and get blasted on Wiiudaily and Miiverse whenever i suggest Nintendo needs to change or even suggest changes. theyre almost as bad as Apple fanatics, taking offense by even daring to question Nintendo, even though i do it because i want to see Nintendo do better. sorry, had to vent there, back to topic

yes, i think the Wii U lacks "core" gamers. gamers that dont have a specific alliance to a given brand name, who cares about the games, not the games creators and plays several different games judging them on a game per-game basis. it strikes me that 70% of Wii U gamers or more are Nintendo fanboys/loyalists, people who have the mottos of "i buy nintendo to play Nintendo games","only Nintendo games are real games","3rd party games are all distusting shoothers" and my favorite "3rd parties are corrupt and fear Nintendo".

these people are holding Nintendo down by shunning 3rd parties(and afterwards wonder why they dont have 3rd party support), defend Nintendo against all criticism and giving the fanbase a bad name. part of the reason i havent interacted much with the fanbase lately is because i have experienced that it doesnt welcome any constructive debate on the Wii U, the fanbase is so used to defending the Wii U and Nintendo, that they either shut down completely or lash out when anyone suggests things arent perfect with Nintendo. i strongly believe Nintendo should have taken more steps to differentiate the Wii U from Wii. give it an original name like "Nintendo Fusion", that would be great, make it look different from the Wii, advertize it differently, focus on different games(less of the "Wii-" series for instance), give it a more interesting UI with innovative gamepad integration, make the system less gamepad dependent overall.

thing is, the Wii attracted many casual gamers(il define these as people who dont identify as gamers) and that drove much of its sales with more core gamers getting tired of the gimped graphics and lack of support in the later end of its lifespan. thus, when the Wii U was released. casuals had moved on to smart devices, i know several personal examples of people who had Wii but passed on Wii U in favor of smart devices, many being parents. the core gamers who earlier had Wii looked at it and saw the Wii 2 and didnt want to enter the same trap as they did before with bad 3rd party support and bad graphics. so it only appealed to gadget enthusiasts and Nintendo loyals. as a consequence, it doesnt have a very 3rd party friendly audience, partially because of bad early ports which were caused by Nintendo not being 3rd party friendly enough early in Wii U development. its a dark circle. now the Wii U lacks popularity due to bad market judgement, in turn it lacks 3rd party support and yet again they lack a 3rd party friendly audience because of the initial bad support. im honestly dissapointed with the Wii U, Nintendo made a ton of mistakes that could have been avoided with better judgement.

I think to turn this around, Nintendo needs new management, or at least brand new strategies. A revolution if you will, kind of like what happened with the Wii, something no one expects. maybe make a console that aims to be somewhat of an all purpose device? make it linux or android compatible? integrate with Nintendo`s quality of life project to make it a health station? give it exchangable parts so it can be updated with better hardware over time? make a handheld that could connect to a TV and be controlled with a standard controller(like the Shield Tab)? maybe give the home and handheld console similar architecture to make the home console run handheld games? the options are many, i hope Nintendo takes advantage of them and turns themselves around

i think the issue is that nintendo didnt try properly to gain support. they showed some footage of 3rd party games, they approached several 3rd parties to try and get them onboard. but Nintendo supposedly went against 3rd parties wishes for a faster CPU and (keep in mind, supposedly) made bad dev kits and didnt give proper development support. its believed that Nintendo network was barely even finished before launch which caused that huge update and 3rd parties could barely test their games for online play at launch. in turn, the Wii U didnt sell well and now 3rd parties see no reason to develop for a console with weaker hardware and less sales than its competitors

Eh, there aren't enough gamers on wii u 'fullstop'. I think games used to be a lot harder and took more skill to beat. These days anyone with simply competent gaming ability can literally face roll their way through those 'core' 3rd party games you mentioned.

Also, those 3rd party games had other issues. A number of them didn't provide the same dlc or online functionality as their console counterparts, and were released MUCH later than PS3/XBox 360 versions. In the case of Mass Effect 3, why on earth did EA even bother? Like, I bought Deus Ex: Human Revolution for PC when it released in August 2011. Now I heard the wii u port was pretty good, buy why on earth would I want to pay $60 for something I bought and played through 2 years before!

I think Nintendo would be happier if publishers like EA, Ubisoft, Squre-Enix would make exclusive games that made special use of the console hardware. Of course the problem for the 3rd party's was exacerbated by Nintendo' inability to move units, but clearly those companies could do better if they targeted their games better to Nintendo audiences. I really dunno why they're surprised that when they dump old ports (with missing functionality) on Nintendo consoles, that they bomb 'hard'..

There are plenty of games that are popular with Nintendo audiences that don't involve Mario. I think many people who buy Nintendo consoles want their games to focus on creativity,, unique gameplay mechanics and fun rather than on cinematic and 'gritty' action. They're not trying hard enough basically, but then again Nintendo are hardly giving them any incentive to either.

Well, my first guess would be lots of Call of Duty, interspersed with assorted EA Sports games. I'd imagine that'd make up the top 20 (Skyrim and GTA probably place in there somewhere). The reason I didn't go with top selling games is because I knew there wouldn't be much variety, much like how the top 10 selling Wii Games are mostly the Wii Play/Fit/Sports etc. and Mario games. Top selling games don't show a lot of variety. (Top selling Wii games)

Not to be rude or anything, everyone has their own tastes, but why would you consider sex in video games to be worse than violence, or KILLING people? Is it better to see someone get shot, then to see two people participating in things that humans do naturally every day? Especially if it's two people who are in love? (Take Mass Effect as an example, and yes, THAT GAME is also on a Nintendo system.) Just something to think about I suppose. It's not like I even PLAY those types of games often (never played GTA to be honest) but I disagree with your post. If sex is shown in a tasteful fashion, it can improve the story in a variety of ways.

/highfive
Gaming is a crazy beast, and Nintendo isn't an alligator. It isn't ready to stop evolving.

I agree with you; they're just not the focus of those consoles, or the heavily marketed system sellers. Take a look at the Xbox One, for example: its biggest games this year in terms of sales and ad space were Titanfall, Destiny, COD, and Master Chief Collection, which is a fact that should speak for itself.

Nothing against people who enjoy those games; they're just not my cup of tea, and I'm glad it's possible to own a major home console with an entirely different focus.

Great post. I agree with pretty much everything. Ahem, except with the usage of the term "mature".

Which is part of the point.Best Sellers tend to be the M-rated, gritty, Blow/Gray, Realistic Shooters and that means you get more of those games. A system can have variety and still be flooded with bad games. (example: Wii)

People need to get over this idea that there are two different kinds of games and two different kinds of gamers. The "core" and the "casual". It's a load of nonsense. When I scroll through my Steam and eShop libraries I don't see that sort of divide. One week I might be spending the bulk of my gaming time on my Wii U knee deep in The Wonderful 101, Smash Bros or Zelda while my PC is used for filler like FTL or Luftrausers. The next week I might be playing through one of the Arkham games, Bioshock or Tomb Raider while on the Wii U I fill in the gaps with a VC title or a small indie game like Shovel Knight. All platforms have their fair share of games across the spectrum.

Also I don't buy this idea that the big first party games on Nintendo's platform somehow aren't "core" titles. Frankly there's significantly more polish in and skill required with something like Zelda, Smash or Mario then there is in the vast, vast majority of other games. I don't measure how much of a "gamer game" something is based on the art-style. In the same way that I don't measure how satisfying a movie is based on how many explosions or much gore there is. I love Tarantino's movies but I wouldn't say that Inglourious Basterds is more of a "movie-lovers movie" than Toy Story is. I mentioned the Arkham games before, I love them. However I can say with a straight face that every single Zelda game is more of a "gamer game" and even more challenging than those games are.

I will not completely disagree with you on your points, but you are just confusing people. Simply put there are Casuals and there are Core gamers which are part of the Mass Market. To say you could say anything like there are Mature Core gamers,Casual Mature gamers, Young core gamers, Mature Casual gamers etc. end of the day they all fall in either casual or core gamers, and if you want to look at it from a business POV, they are all just Mass Market and they will make games that SELL- they would be least bothered about Core or Casuals.

I do agree with you that the core gamers are small in percentage (though I think it's well abouve 20%), what I feel is that it's even smaller in case of Wii U, that was the whole point of this topic.I wouldn't label myself core or anything but People like me play Games, all sorts of games, Games that are FUN . Except for Ico, I've played rest of the games you've mentioned (All excellent Games).

...I believe a true gamers don't stick to one franchise or brand or anything, and are open to any GOOD games, and I believe people are preferring an PS4/XBO because maybe it's just a better value overall for them (Subjective), and the larger choices cuz at the end it's money that buys and even if other consoles doesn't have games fo the time being, they know that is going to change soon, once and for all.But I have soft spot for Nintendo (Cuz everybody can have favourites right?) hence I am here with My Wii U and I though I will only stick to Wii U this gen with all the 3rd party promises at the beginning of Wii U's lifespan, but now if I don't buy a PS4/XBO I will be missing on loads of good games.

...back to the topic, I feel core gamers are open to all sorts of games, let's just say NSMBU/Donkey Kong : TF/LOZ : Wind Waker were put on other consoles, It would sell like Hot cakes BEcause those are badass games.And now what if Wii U had the likes of GTA 5/The last of us/Uncharted/Elder scrolls/GOW/Dead Rising etc put your hand to ur heart and tell me One of these games would sell well. I think core gamers are open to every possible good game ( @skywake I'm lookin at u), which Wii U has, but in lesser numbers i guess. also I assume skills of a casual will not allow them to enjoy games like Bayonetta 2/Wonderful 101 and the likes.

There's 3 sides to every coin. (Heads, tails, and the edge that no one ever counts). Thinking about this topic and reading some comments, I come to the conclusion that the core - no pun intended - is the games themselves and the companies behind them. As much as I'd love to have more of these third party multi-plat games, the premise behind it is stupid. As in the companies are lazy and out for money, and really not much more. A lot of what's given is due to the community outcry. Anyway, that's getting away from my point. As great as it would be to have these same games on all consoles, it's stupid that it's the same thing across the board it's stupid that there are definitive versions. As much as everyone wants to be "the best", how it should be is just like how we are as people. Everyone is unique. Every game should be unique. Each systems version should have its own unique features, some exclusive content, and even unique controls. In that aspect, most of what the Wii U gets is at least somewhat on the right track. As mentioned in the o.p., CoD on Wii U (which I love) has Off-TV Play, Dual-Screen Co-op, and the most control options out there. That's one example I suppose. Aaaand now I think I got a lot of rant out of me

To the subject of swearing, nudity, and gore in videogames: I think there's a line as with anything. Does a game NEED it? Of course not. Sometimes it can enhance the experience by making it more realistic. Then there are those that cross the line by being excessive. Going back to CoD as an example - or anything that's depicting a military environmeny - If you don't think those men and women don't swear their f***ing mouths off, then you, kind sir, are a f***ing dumba**.

I'll bring the movie analogy back into this. It's possible for a crap movie to sell well, it's possible for an "easy" movie to appeal to hardened critics and it's possible for something which is the very definition of "the movie-lover movie" to bomb. I don't think this idea of core and casual really makes much sense at all. People who play a lot of games can enjoy easy mass market games. People who don't play a lot of games can sit down and play something that is obscure and challenging. It's nonsense to say otherwise. There's no such thing as a "type of gamer". There just isn't.

This is especially true if you're measuring the games based on age ratings. There's zero correlation between age ratings, difficulty and quality. I don't think it's fair to throw Smash Bros, Mario Kart, 3D World, Zelda, DK or even New SMB in an entirely different category to GTA, Far Cry or Assassin's Creed. It's a load of nonsense, especially when you label them with "hardcore". I'm sorry but Shovel Knight is more "Hard Core" than CoD will ever be. I resent this idea that fans of any medium use the content they enjoy to try and show how tough they are. If you want to do that bugger off, I don't want to be a part of it.

Sure, they are swearing. I work at a law firm where people swear all the time. However, the ironic thing is no fabricated media can EVER be realistic. Try as hard as they want by adding swears, it is still not realistic. It simply cannot be. I mean, how many busty female characters in video games are there? Or how many on film sex scenes are "realistic?"

I am not sure where this supposed realism in media comes from, or why it is used to justify certain things. They aren't realistic. None of them are. If 100 is reality and 1 is the most unrealistic thing imaginable, adding swearing, "realistic gore" and sex/nudity to a video game MIGHT be able to push that game from a 1 or 2 to 3 or 4 on the realism spectrum. So I am not sure why realism is the goal at all. There is hardly a difference between how realistic something is by adding any of these things. Super Mario is no more unrealistic than CoD or Destiny or Witcher or Mass Effect or Far Cry or (add ANY game here).

Basically, I think the excuse of realism is a lame one.

nintendo is for real gamers, the others are for brainwashed idiots looking for interactive movies

you think just because a man serves in the military, he must swear? lol. kids are hilarious

To each their own I suppose. I don't need it, and I firmly believe more often than not sex distracts from a story (in any medium) rather than contributes. And no, I am not a prude. Sex does not make me uncomfortable.

Also, for the record, you may have noticed that violence (excessive) was also one of the things that bothers me in video games.

I think implied sex can be very important to a story (Sheperd and Tali/Miranda/Liara go into a room alone), but is there a reason to get down and nasty on screen? Not really IMO...well, unless it's porn .

Implied sex, in my opinion, is a much more powerful story telling tool than actual depiction.