This makes complete sense to me. I hope they move forward in this way, but something tells me they're not gonna to miss the opportunity to try and sell a new console to those 86 million Wii owners.

you got a good point.. but, Nintendo it's hardly known for making games for hardcore gamers right now.. and also they have a strong brand name.. "Wii"

If Nintendo does what you suggest, I may actually buy the their next console. It makes great sense. But this is stil assuming that third-party  developers can make serious games with motion control that is not gimmicky. We can hope, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Nintendo thought we didn't want to play games online, it wouldn't be shocking if they try to make lightning strike twice.

Great article. Nintendo could possibly support both Wii and Cafe at the same time. The wii is pretty much on autopilot now, only needing a few 1st party titles here and there. But I don't think nintendo will make Cafe the next core gamer focused system. Unless the Cafe is extremely powerful in the traditional processing and graphics department (I highly doubt that), what would gamers and developers benefit from a system that gives them an equal experience to the +4 years old PS3/360, which owns that core market (the market with higher software sales) and are trying to get some of the wii's market.

You're absolutely right, Rus. Casual gamers won't re-up, so to speak, at least this soon. Nintendo's only prayer is to aim for the core market. I'd love to buy another Nintendo system, but have no incentive to buy a Wii.

I personally feel that Nintendo may go the way of Sega and just get out of the console game and focus on software.

@Christian

Sega was in a far different financial situation at the time. The Wii sold like hot cakes. Nintendo is no danger of going the way of Sega.

People didn't buy Mario Galaxy for the same reason they didn't buy Mario 64 in droves: they simply don't like 3D Mario, it's not a true Mario game to them. That's why NSMB Wii sold like crazy, not the simplicity, but because 2D Mario is a much better format. If Nintendo DOES release a new console, I'll be disappointed. The reason being that I already know that they'll go the "Gamecube" path all over again.

I am all for Nintendo coming back home. It baked a new pie that the other guys want a piece of. However, if I was running a business, I would want the biggest slice of every pie in the bakery. I would welcome a parallel to the Wii. But if you're going to copy the other guys’ recipe (like they tried to copy yours) then you're going to have to 1-Up them. Rather than simply beef up the hardware stats, the Big N should prioritize their efforts on creating the next Xbox Live. Hopefully if they set out to accomplish this then I believe they can make it work. Nintendo didn't luck out with a strike of lighting when making the Wii. They created a lightning rod and they can build another one.

"Super Mario Galaxy 2 only sold six million units, or about 2/3rds what its predecessor did."

I don't think SMG2 should be listed just yet, as SMG was out well in advance of SMG2.  Also, DKCR and the other two you mentioned haven't even been out a year yet.

I think Nintendo's still got plenty of juice left in them. Satoru Iwata seems a lot brighter than Shigeru Miyamoto when it comes to producing solid support for a video game console. Just as an example, the Gamecube barely came up with enough long-lasting titles to keep gamers hooked. The Wii looked like it would follow suit, but some of the games at the end of its run really pushed the capabilities of the console.

Nintendo's still making plenty of smart moves with Wi-fi Streetpass technology in the 3DS. I'd like to see how the new system integrates Internet gameplay. Pokemon White/Black is also a big step in the right direction, especially now that the new Internet features have opened up.

Like I said before, I'm still itching to play in an Animal Crossing-style Internet community with a bunch of commercialist junkies who collect goofy furniture. I just know that Nintendo can do it.

As time goes on, I become more and more convinced that Rus is a future version of me that sneezed too hard and somehow broke the spacetime continuum, which transported him into the present day.

Or perhaps it was I who sneezed too hard and was transported into the future...

Rus' message is not endorsed by James DeRosa.

Your definition of what a "core gamer" is really doesn't make sense to me -- and I consider myself one of them there...er....long-standing fans.

I think the Wii has catered to me just as well as the Xbox or the PS3, and it's really a matter of what you consider "casual," "hardcore," and "obsessed."

For me “obsessed” is hardcore, and I think of games like Gears of War and God of War as dilettante titles. They are for people who only appreciate the format of "game" on a lazy Saturday afternoon.

Put it this way: If you think mainstream Wii is the ground floor, then Xbox and PS3 and mainstream PC are the basement. From there, PC indies and Wii sleepers are the sub-basement.

Honestly...the PC indie scene and the Wii are where I go to find truly joyful and innovative titles -- and that's what I consider truly “hardcore.” On the PC, it's due to the programming accessibility of things like the Unity Engine and Flash.

On Wii, its totally (100%!!!!) due to the UI. I love the Wii. I've had so many distinct experiences with the console....

As a "hardcore" gamer, the platform has offered me more novel experiences than the 360 and the PS3 have this generation. And that's beyond the average "shoot-y" games; I don't think even XBLA titles like Ilomilo and Braid make up the difference.

But eh.... I'll concede this: I guess it really depends on how you define "hardcore."

Very few titles on the PS3 and Xbox have had novel ideas. For every “groundbreaking” game on Xbox, regardless of scale or budget (like Gears of War or Braid), I can point to at least three more experimental titles on Wii that have more fully satisfied my curiosity about the possibilities of the interactive format.

High profile (stuff like Gears): Dead Space: Extraction, Super Mario Galaxy, House of the Dead: Overkill, No More Heroes 2: Desperate Struggle, Super Paper Mario, Little King's Story, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, Lost in Shadow, Fragile Dreams: Farewell Ruins of the Moon

Indie (stuff like Limbo and Braid): World of Goo; LostWinds; Mega Man 9 (yes, this counts; reinventing a long-standing, ongoing franchise by reinventing 8-bit...Mega Man 10...not so much), Cave Story, Max and the Magic Marker, Bit.Trip hexalogy, Fluidity, And Yet It Moves....

Sure, titles like Limbo and Braid and PixelJunk occupy an incredible amount of mindshare, but that doesn't make them the best or the most inventive.

Behind the true innovation leviathan (both 2D and polygonal) that has been indie scene on PC for the past five years, I think the Wii has been the greatest bastion for the truly "insane hardcore" like me.

Your assessment presumes a lot of things about what a “core” or a “hardcore” gamer is. I fit both of those definitions, and I'm nearly ready to say that, during this generation, I've had more fun with my Wii and my PC than I have with my PS3 and my Xbox.

P.S. This may also be a product of the fact that I'm getting old and I'm “too hardcore.” It's not a bragging thing. Actually the opposite: I'm feeling increasingly out of touch with mainstream gaming. David Crane's Pitfall! was my first favorite game, and I love seeing such an astute remake of Crane's A Boy and His Blob on Wii. Even more, the new A Boy and His Blob on Wii was better than the original. Same with Mega Man 9; much better than Mega Man 6, 7, and 8.

P.P.S. I didn't really argue against a “Wii 2” so much as I argued for the Wii. The comment spiraled out of control, and I meant to argue for a new Wii, but I just didn't get there since I so fully disagreed with your assessment of the Wii. Maybe...I'll write a sequel to this comment someday since I do want a Wii 2, but probably not. In the end, I'll just say this: If Nintendo can make "Wii 2" as satisfying for me as "Wii" was, then I'm there, first day.

@James

It's good that you were able to find meaningful experiences on the Wii, but it would seem the Wii's core audience (no pun intended) is the sort of gamer (call it whatever you wish) who buys fewer titles, tolerates less of a learning curve, and isn't looking for "deeper" experiences. I stand by my assertion that this sort of gamer would be perfectly happy with the Wii if Wii 2 tried to capture the same audience. What incentive does the casual gamer have to re-up?

Btw, don't misunderstand me--I don't believe "casual gamer" is a negative term, and I don't believe Rus did either. But whether we acknowledge it or not, the market segment exists, and developers are acutely aware of it.

I disagree entirely. A few holes in your logic:

Nintendo will not sell a console at a loss, and we have no reason to believe that they should have to do so. Nintendo's strategy has always been to sell hardware at a profit, and this is true for every system they've released. The PS3 and Xbox 360 each currently sell at a profit, and if we believe the rumors that the new Nintendo console will have similar (if only slightly more advanced) specs, then there's no reason to think Nintendo would be forced to sell hardware at a loss.

The "casual" market would not be satisfied with annual updates to "casual" games. Just look at the Wii Fit and Wii Fit Plus as an illustrative example. The former sold more than 22 million copies while the later sold around half that. There's only one year difference in release times, too. Wii Sports sold north of 76 million copies. Wii Sports Resort? About 26 million. Wii Play sold about 27 million. Do you really think Wii Play: Motion will buck this trend?

The point is that these games were so popular because of novelty and innovation. Turning them into the Madden series will not allow Nintendo to coast on cruise control for the Wii platform. The data show that consumers have become increasingly disinterested.

You should also consider that your argument here is directly undermined by your main thesis: that the "causal" market is not interested in updated hardware. Why would they be interested in updated software, then? You never make the case.

Whatever Nintendo has planned, it will neither be a direct Wii update nor will it be a system that caters to "core" gamers (I suppose your definition fits players of those types of games most popular for traditional consoles) solely.

@Rob

I think Rus' point was that, as you point out, casual gamers won't be interested in annual updates to casual games. Almost by definition, casual gamers buy fewer software titles in general. The point is not that casual gamers would be interested in a core-i-fied Wii system, but that core gamers would buy into it. From a business perspective, it made sense to tap the casual market for the Wii, but what incentive would they have to re-up so soon? (by their definition)

To answer your question, casual gamers generally *aren't* interested in updated software, inasmuch as they tend to buy fewer games in general. But they'd be far likely to pick up a barbain bin title or even a new game over shelling out $200+ for a new console (especially when their current one works fine).

I disagree again, Jason. Rus specifically argues that these "casual" gamers don't buy software: "Casual buyers sucked in by Wii Play rarely scaled up to Super Mario Galaxy. They also only bought one or two games a year..."

What attracted these consumers was the initial novelty and innovation of not only the system but those high-selling games. That has since worn off, as the sales data trends show. Nintendo can't bank on them staying content with the Wii and launch a new console that explicitly excludes them. Such a move would not only diminish the Wii's brand power but could potentially lose Nintendo those customers permanently.

And another problem about software sales as a sticking point is that the hardcore franchises don't sale as well. Using VGChartz info, the 'hardcore' franchise sales on the Wii is right in line with what a hardcore franchise or title would say on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, no better or worse. (that's only if you don't combine total sales for a console.)

It's unfair to assume that only people who like games like Just Dance 2, Wii Play, Wii Sports, Wii Party will never pick up a hardcore game. Every game and genre has their audience and they will flock to a new title if it interest them.

Despite all appearances, the Wii wasn't a 100% casual system. There were a few titles for core gamers, mainly the requisite Mario/Zelda/Metroid revamps--Super Mario Galaxy, New Super Mario Bros. Wii (a top seller--#4 in the US for 2010--but far beyond the scope of casual gamers), Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3, Other M, etc. IMO, these titles weren't snatched up by casual gamers, for whom the inherent learning curve would be too daunting, but by the Nintendo loyalists who stick by the big N each generation.

If New Super Mario Bros. Wii gave *me* trouble, then it'd be impossibly daunting for casual gamers.

I disagree that casual gamers were attracted by mainstays like the Mario and Zelda series. Rather, they probably bought a Wii for Wii Sports, Mario Kart Wii, Just Dance, and other party games. Should Nintendo completely exclude casual gamers with Wii 2? No. But it makes sense to renew their focus on core gamers, potentially attracting a new(er) audience that largely stayed away from its prior offering.

"Casual" games do generally outsell "core" games, especially in the last decade, but I'm doubtful that casual gamers would want to shell out hundreds of dollars for another console (at least this soon).

After reading the original article and the comments a lot of you are barely seeing the big picture. The apple business model shows how techno-consumer behaves. They want things faster and better. And considering core Nintendo titles have been hiatus since 2008 I welcome a New Wii while my bitmob colleagues do not. And is everyone so worried about the expansion of the market? Only through expansion will find new avenues of game expression.

It also assumes that people who love Nintendo franchises also don't have multple consoles. This longer hardware cycle has allowed people to save up and potentially own more than one system. And if that's the case, the games you can't play on the Wii, and based on sales charts, it's a bunch of first person shooters and open world titles, they can find those games on those systems and be content.

Would any 360/PS3 owner rebuy Red Dead just to say they play it on a new console if they content of the game doesn't change at all?

Excellent points. But I wonder if anyone would even give a "hardcore Nintendo system" any credence?

By contemporary standards, would not the NES and SNES be considered "core" systems? Granted, times were different then, and during the NES days, Nintendo had a virtual monopoly on gaming, but still...

I think we're making too much of a fuss over the software/hardware arguments. Yes, the Nintendo Wii had a fetish on hardware. Yes, the Wii Fit and various other titles were novelty games. However, even some of the hardware-based games were pretty hardcore even by today's standards.

Sin and Punishment 2 was probably the coolest game I'd ever played with a remote and a joystick. That game combined crazy elements, such as the bullet hell section at the end of the game. You definitely wouldn't see such a challenging section in the first game, with its outdated control scheme.

So I definitely think Nintendo's system was hardcore in a much different way than we're expecting. I think the real problem was its inability to handle Internet gameplay. Everyone's playing multiplayer Internet games these days, but Nintendo has failed to cash in on this trend.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for Nintendo to jump on the bandwagon. Nintendo thought that Internet gameplay would never catch on, but they were dead wrong. So the best way to remedy that would be an superb Internet system, right?

I'm just trying to figure out how a home console that's near 90 million sold worldwide and has software that doesnt disappear from charts after a month is losing or needs to win something.

Let's not forget what happened when the 3DS came out. Nintendo called the whole strategy the "Three Pillars". The planned on having the Game Boy Advanced, the DS, and the Gamecube and/or Wii on store shelves at once. And they dropped that pretty quickly when the DS finally shipped.

It would make sense for Nintendo to try and win back the core audience. The casuals are not going to jump in for another machine. They don't care about graphics. There is nothing a new system can offer them. The core gamer, on the other hand, loves power. Most of us also love Nintendo's mascots. I would kill to play a new, fully 3D Mario/Zelda/Metoid PRIME (I said PRIME) on a system more powerful that the current consoles.

And for those of us who love graphics, a new Nintendo Console that was able to out perform the PS3 and Xbox 360 would be a dream come true. All of this is banking on the fact that Nintendo can price it right, of course. Releasing a $400 console at this time would be suicide. Price it right, Nintendo.

They only need to do 4 simple things with this new console to win us over

-Price it right

-Make it powerful

-Have a good selection of launch titles with at least one high profile Nintendo game

-Make sure the controllers retain what the core gamer enjoys. Two analog sticks, two shoulder buttons, two triggers, a d-pad, and 4 face buttons. You can add any touch screen you want, as long as the core controller is kept the same. We do not want to be playing the newest shooter while having to worry about tapping a screen to shoot or move.

I'll just add this for now...there's a rumor going around that the first developer to get dev kits for the new Nintendo console is Rockstar. Who, seperate rumors have it, is hard at work on GTA 5.

@Ed-'We do not want to be playing the newest shooter while having to worry about tapping a screen to shoot or move.' Are shooters the only definition of hardcore? Has Nintendo truly suffered not having the same exact shooters that can be found on the PS3/Xbox 360?

@Kenneth and Ed:

I never really understood the definition of "hardcore" gaming in the first place. What is hardcore? More blood? More shooting? More action? I think we're trying too hard to isolate hardcore gamers as solely young male action fans.

Nintendo really has had a wider variety of styles than we're really considering here. Resident Evil 4 for the Wii was one of the most interesting cases of experimenting successfully with FPS and a remote. Even without a concrete controller style, the Wii really expanded the possibilities for controllers.

I think Dan Hsu's right. I can't really imagine a "hardcore" Nintendo system, because most of our perceptions of hardcore are based on American perceptions of video games. Japan really did come up with plenty of intense, challenging games, but their definition is much different than Western definitions.

Instead, we should really consider what they could do with Internet gaming. Capcom brought back old school fighting games with Internet gameplay in Street Fighter 4. Nintendo could all sorts of things. We shouldn't try to limit them to specific definitions of hardcore styles.

@Jonathan

A "casual gamer" is usually defined as one who has a lower tolerance for high learning curves (along with harder difficulty), desires pick-up-and-play over deeper experiences, spends less time in general on gaming, and buys fewer games than does a core gamer. He/she probably finishes fewer games, as well.

A "core gamer" often prefers titles that require a certain minimum skill set (the basics of FPS's for instance, or of "tactical" RPGs like Tactics Ogre). He/she desires deeper experiences over pick-up-and-play (to contrast two extremes, Wii Sports vs. Final Fantasy Tactics, or any FF game for that matter), enjoys a healthy level of difficulty, and generally buys more games per year than does the casual gamer.

There is of course some cross-pollination. One could consider the multiplayer in Black Ops pick-up-and-play because it's a wholly-contained experience, and one's income (over their level of dedication) sometimes dictates how many games they purchase. But these are the broad strokes. And compared to the Wii's popular party games, Black Ops requires a steep skill set, even if multiplayer is, to core gamers, a pick-up-and-play experience.

One group is inherently no better than the other. I probably fall under the "core" group, though I've played a handful of "casual" games.

@Jason: I like your use of the word "cross-pollination." Lol.

Those are pretty decent definitions. I should take note of this.

I believe I already had this conversation with Jason: if Nintendo can't capture the same "casual" audience that they did with the Wii, they're going to be right back in the hole they were in with the GameCube.

I stand by the belief that Nintendo got lucky with the Wii. The fact that the hardware itself was more profitable than the software is not only extremely rare in this industry, it's quite unheard of. Companies that have emphasized their business strategy on hardware sales (what Nintendo did with the Wii) in the past have been met with struggle and failure. Software is what typically drives the success of a console and, well, seeing as how the Wii's software is, for lack of a batter word, pure shit, this is not the same gamble they should make twice.

I agree with what Rus has to say, but rather than me being concerned because I don't want to play another Wii (I couldn't care any less about Nintendo, period), I just don't want to see Nintendo fall into another hole. Nintendo isn't for me, and probably never will be again, but I acknowledge their impact on this industry today. They are the only self-sustaining console manufacturer, and their games aimed towards younger audiences (yes, Nintendo games are meant for kids) expose new generations to this medium.

Still, their business model sucks and it's inevitably going to bite them in the ass in the same ways it has before.

Did we, Ryan? I honestly can't remember. We have so many debates :-) In any case, I agree (try not to faint).

My detached view of the Wii goes something like this: Nintendo targeted the right market segment at precisely the right time, enjoying wild success in the process. Along with Nintendo loyalists, they also snagged families, non-gamers, and casual gamers. From a business perspective, I can appreciate what they accomplished, though this same strategy won't sustain them with the Wii 2. While casual and/or younger gamers may purchase the occassional piece of software, I can't see them ponying up for another console, at least not in significant quantities.

Personally, I was very dissapointed with the Wii, because I felt as though Nintendo had abandoned me, and those like me. My childhood was synonomous with Nintendo, and it's tough to swallow such a painful breakup. If Nintendo targets core gamers with the Wii, I might jump back aboard the bandwagon. Otherwise, as Ryan said, they'll fail miserably.

@Jason: You basically stated what I tell others whenever my distaste for Nintendo is exposed. I say to them, "I no longer support Nintendo because they no longer support me."

I've moved on and never looked back. To me, Nintendo is a company that emphasises quality, not because they care about the medium at all, but because they care about personal image and profit. While every game company aims to make a profit, they don't do so with such disregard for their ever-changing fanbase as Nintendo does.

I hope for a point in the future where I'll feel inclined to buy a Nintendo console, but I doubt that will ever happen. I'm not an eigh-year-old, anymore. I've grown up. I find no joy in the infantile world of Nintendo, nor do I fit into the inexperienced gaming mindset of the audience they aim to earn capital from.

On another note: Nintendo assures they profit from every console sale because THEY want to make money. They don't give a steaming shit for any other developers. Their consoles are made with their design philosphy in mind and nobody else's. The fact that companies have always had issues designing for Nintendo consoles (coding, control scheme, releasing content unregulated by Nintendo) is a blatant hint that Nintendo cares very little about the freedom of third-party developers.

Nintendo gets away with a lot more shit than people are willing to admit, and they gain a lot more kudos than I think they deserve.

@Ryan: While I think it's true that Nintendo is more focused on its own self-interests, I think Nintendo has allowed room for some popular game franchises from third party developers. Once again, though, they're not willing to take a risk unless it makes a profit for them and their system.

Because of this, I think Nintendo is forcing many people to miss out on the rare third-party games that really made an impact. Even though I enjoyed the Wii, the third-party support is declining extremely quickly. If they don't do anything new with Project Cafe, I'm betting that they're just going to stick to handheld video games in the near future.

Hey Ryan, Apple says hi. They sell their hardware for a profit and they do it pretty well.

I was the biggest Nintendo fanboy until the Wii came out. It didn't have games I could play and it was practically running away from me, trying to get my parents to accept it. If Nintendo does even half of what you suggest, I'll seriously consider not buying the next Xbox.

All this talk about core gamers and casual gamers remind me of when our country was "divided" by red states and blue states...

Anyway, @Ryan, it seems like you contradicted yourself. At the risk of sounding like a Nintendo fan-boy, you seem to trash Nintendo for their business strategy during the Gamecube era by saying they were struggling and failing as you put it. Then you hate on them when they changed their business strategy for the Wii and increased their profits.

Now I’m not saying you should want or buy anything Nintendo. In fact the amount of Original Xbox titles I own (and still own) more than quadruples what I own for Gamecube. Besides, what do company profits have to do with you liking a Nintendo game anyway? Don’t support them if they don’t support you, right?

My point is that a company’s sales, hardware or software, does not equal success. Profit and growth is the key to any company’s success. As anyone knows, the best games/music/movies/food/clothing/service doesn’t always produce the biggest sales. Also vice versa. Sometimes things that do sell can flat out suck.

With that said, Nintendo (a Japanese company if you haven’t noticed) had a (Japanese?) business model for the Gamecube era and for better or worse they managed to make a profit. Please correct me if I am wrong about that. Then Nintendo wanted growth so they changed their strategy when they released the Wii. Now they want even more so the new strategy is… well I guess that’s the whole point of this article and this debate.

Regardless, if we follow the business strategies of Nintendo, it only makes sense that the core audience they seemed to have missed would be their next target. (Will you still hate Nintendo then @Ryan?) This is why I agree with Rus that Nintendo can support parallel systems. Or at least parallel standard controllers. (The classic controller doesn’t count.) And while we are on the topic of controllers…

Whatever audience the Wii catered to, by anyone’s definition, has to understand that Nintendo did a good job serving both core and casual gamers. The other comments attest to this. However, the reason that this console is being seen as 'casual' is because of that damn controller and not the games themselves.

Nintendo abandoned a standard button layout that most, if not all, 3^rd party developers’ use. This made sure that a good portion of games didn’t fit the Wii. Add to the fact that online gaming proved a necessity in this console generation, it left the Wii with the least popular version of 3^rd party titles and in a lot of cases, no Wii version at all.

That leaves us with games that didn’t fit the other two consoles, most of which turned out to be shovel ware. Ergo the lack of 3^rd party support and the lack of overall software sales.

Either way, back to @Ryan’s comments.

As far as the whole thing about Nintendo not caring about 3^rd party developers, what about when 3^rd party developers stopped caring about Nintendo when they released the N64? Ok that was a joke.

Seriously though, as with any company (especially Microsoft), you cannot tell me that they won’t take care of themselves first before they take care of other companies. Now if my theory is correct about Nintendo’s next business strategy would be to cater to the core audience that they missed with the Wii then it means that 3^rd party developers would support the demand. This is of course assuming Nintendo gives us something more traditional than the Wiimote. (How else would they appeal to the core?)

Lastly, @Ryan you act like Nintendo’s doing something like AIG and is making profits off of your hard earned savings. What shit are they getting away with exactly? Nintendo is making a profit off of games people want. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. And if you don’t want those games, well we both are already not buying Nintendo right now so what more can I say?

It's funny you should say that, Juan, because I don't own any Apple products either. That's just a matter of personal preference, though; I have no need for anything Apple makes, even though they are fantastic products. Apple, though, is a general hardware manufacturer that has spread their business objectives into other industries and mediums (music, film, games). It's easy for a hardware company to thrive when their hardware isn't centered on a specific industry. Hell, Apple was in the dirt until they entered the music realm with the iPod. Also, the design of Apple hardware is aimed towards the convenience and support of the end user, not the developer.

Nintendo makes one thing, meant for one purpose, and sold to only one type of demographic. The profit that lies with these very limiting hardware appliances is based on the support of those who design software for them. This is why the software developer, rather than the end user, are considered more important when it comes to the design of a video game console.

This is also why so many third-party developers haven't even bothered with the Wii. Nintendo only had themselves in mind when they made it.

I really disagree with the one demographic charge, Nintendo games have always been aimed as universal experiences for everyone. That they succeed or fail is another matter. For their third party support, one of the best selling games this past year was a Ubisoft game. My original point still stands, a tech company can sell their hardware as a profit and succeed. And success is what Nintendo has been reaping with the Wii and the DS.

Everyone, eh? So, Nintendo games are meant for 24-year-old, 210 lbs metalheads with tattoos? I guess I'm missing something.

I think you should take a look at why SEGA failed as a hardware company. Nintendo is making a lot of the same mistakes SEGA did before their fall. I'm not arguing that a company can be successful by emphasizing hardware over software, but it is a dumb business model to have in an industry such as this.

@Ryan:

I think Sega released more hardware than even Nintendo has released. I mean, consider how Sega released the Genesis, then the Sega CD, the 32X, the Game Gear, the Saturn and the Dreamcast. All those add-ons are a little too much to bother with.

Nintendo did a slight variation on the same thing. They tinkered around so often with controller styles that everyone ended up getting tired off all the options. Some of the software is good, but a lot of the games are disappointing.

For the record, I'm just glad that Nintendo hasn't released awful games such as those on the Jaguar or the 3DO. At least they're still releasing some really good games to keep us excited.

"Nintendo games have always been aimed as universal experiences for everyone."

Nintendo has always been a family-friendly company (anyone remember the Mortal Kombat "sweat" fiasco?), but that doesn't mean they make games for "everyone." The fact is that most hardware/software developers started out on equal footing: making games for a younger audience. Some of them grew up with their audience. Others, like Nintendo, didn't.

As far as third party support goes, Lets Dance 2 (Ubisoft) was the #7 best seller in the US, but it was behind two first-party Nintendo games. And on the top 50 best-sellers for the last decade, there was only one third-party Nintendo game on the list (Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games). For better or worse, a Nintendo system is tantamount to first-party titles. The days of Nintendo owning all the third-party licenses are long gone.

Ryan the videogame industry doesn't just revolve around 20-somethings. But can 20-somethings find an appeal in Super Mario Galaxy? Of course they can. The Nintendo appeal is for everyone, videogames are becoming ubiquitious as time goes by. The Wii hardware needs a refresh, why is that so much to swallow for us?

No, Juan, it doesn't just revolve around 20-somethings. In point of fact, the average gamer is around 34-35. This means that Nintendo can't expect to strike lightning twice by appealing primarily to a young, casual crowd.

I think people like to put things into buckets.  Into quantifiable groups.  It’s human nature, I suppose.  See what I did right there?  I did it myself.

That said, I’ve grown tired of the core/casual/hardcore groupings.  I’ll go so far as to say it’s a bunch of BS.  Sure, some people only do one thing.  I think we all know someone who "will only play Madden" or say "I only play Halo".  Some "gamers" only play Facebook games.  My contention is that people do the very same activities or make the identical purchases, but for different reasons (witness all the people playing tennis on a public court sometime as proof... there’s millions of other examples.. one need only swing by Costco and witness the consumer behavior at work).

As an aside, I would like to talk about how people watch different movies.  Last Friday my wife and I went and saw Scream 4.  Bloody, funny in parts, ultra-violent, self-deprecating, oh and violent.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.  A few months back we watched Toy Story 3.  Hilarious, visually stunning, scary in parts, and it was a tear jerker, too.  And I thoroughly enjoyed THAT.

My point here is that at many points during the week I am a casual gamer, a core gamer, one-of-those-motion-gaming-guys, a PC-gamer, a console gamer, and ultimately a voracious consumer of any and all interactive media.  I will stealthily kill an alien in Crysis 2 one minute, and then pop in Super Mario Galaxy 2 the next, just for a change of pace.  I may even dance after a few pints.

Sure, there are different consumer types.  Some are action oriented, wanting the newest, most extreme experience. Others are status oriented, seeking opinions of others and concerned with keeping up with the Joneses.  And of course there are the philosophical thinking, researching types who are always “Shoulding” on me when I’d rather they didn’t.  But still.  Segregating by gamer type for a console that has sold 80 million units is just plain ridiculous.  That's what you call a cash cow roughly the size of the entire Baby Boomer generation.

There’s always room in my entertainment shelves for another Nintendo system under one stipulation… they have to keep bringing thoroughly entertaining experiences to my living room.  They don’t owe me anything, but if I can make a request, I’d love to see an HD update/chapter in the Rogue Squadron series.  I’d buy it for that alone.

Juan, if you enjoy Nintendo games, I'm not going to knock you. That's your prerogative and, quite honestly, I have no problem admitting that you probably have more fun with them at times than I do with my "adult" games. Nintendo games are fantastic. But to claim that their titles carry a completely universal appeal is absurd. Sure, an adult can enjoy "Spongebob Squarepants", but does that mean it's meant for adults too? No, it doesn't.

Nintendo makes games for kids. I never could understand why people try to refute that, because there's no point. Enjoying a Nintendo game, be it for kids or not, says nothing about the character of the one playing it. So, just enjoy the damn game and say, "Yeah, they're for kids. Fun, fun fun!"

Jason is on the mark, with this one. Nintendo owes most of its overall success to circumstance, not great business strategy. Their strict, Nazi-like business policy was okay back when SEGA was their only competitor, but now that companies like Sony and MS give developers whatever room they need to breathe, Nintendo seems considerably unattractive with their habit of breathing down everyone's neck (sometimes literally).

The fact that the Wii's best-selling title is the one that COMES WITH the console should tell you something about how great their third-party support is. And yes, unless they can make another attractive console, they will hurt next generation.

@Keith

I respect your passion and the fact that your tastes span the spectrum. But I don't think that merely pointing out the existence of a market segment necessarily leads to the Balkanization of gaming, as you seem to be implying. Whether we acknowledge it or not, developers and publishers target certain titles at specific audiences. Mass Effect, for example, is not intended for casual gamers. The steep learning curve and degree of customization would be too daunting for them. Similarly, Bioware would never attempt to market a Farmville clone to ME fans.

Whether adults enjoy cartoonish titles like Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, or "core" gamers enjoy iOS software like Angry Birds, it's clear that each game is *intended* for a certain crowd. You point out a good parallel with movies. Whereas "The Proposal," as a prototypical romantic comedy, is aimed at that crowd, "The Expendibles" is aimed at fans of old-school 80's action flicks. Macho, red-blooded guys might enjoy "You've Got Mail," and sweet girly-girls might appreciate "Die Hard," but the original market segments still exist. Marketers might claim that their product can be enjoyed by the whole family, but this is usually rubbish. "Toy Story 3" is the rare exception that truly appeals to all ages (and was intended as such).

If artists and designers didn't target their work at specific audiences, then everything would look the same.

"Casuals won't pony up for a new console while they're still enjoying their Wii, so who is Café for? Gamers."

Casual gamers are still gamers. We're all one big happy family. :P

@Dennis, that's kind of my point.  Too much finger pointing... which leads me to my next point. Ha!  Puns a plenty!

@Jason, you're spot on with the stuff on targeting.  I agree, all brand and product managers try to target a core audience (not the same use) as well as secondary audiences.  What’s interesting is when one or all of the ‘targets’ is offended even by the other’s existence!  That seems to be the case with the Wii.  This is an instance where some of the so-called “core” gamers are offended that the “casual” gamers even exist and use the same device.  Perhaps it is a fear of being thought of as "casual" (guilt by association).

Meanwhile, the “casual” gamers are FAR too busy asking the “core” gaming experts they know which games they should buy next month/quarter/Christmas to even notice the attitude.

That’s what I would call ironical.  

@Dennis and Keith: Holy cow, I'd forgotten how long we've been arguing about Nintendo. Lol.

Certainly many of us are trying to argue that Nintendo games are too casual or geared solely towards children. I'd rather argue that it's all because of Nintendo's stupefying advertising campaign for family-friendly games all the time.

I'm sure everyone has some sort of grudge against those old whitewashed advertisements in the classic style of the Leave it to Beaver TV show. In the same way, Nintendo keeps using its ads to to try and change its image to the all-American game system for every middle-class family to enjoy.

Of course, this entire image is contradictory, not just because Nintendo is a Japanese company. It's because the ads are trying to give us the assumption that every game system should live up to this classic happy family image in every stinking Wii ad. The reality is that most of the older generations hardly play a video game console.

Nintendo only manages to stay successful because it has managed to cater its image to appeal to all these old people who are usually buying the systems for their children. The big question is what Nintendo will do to change the public perception nowadays.

Whatever they're going to do next, I'm not buying their new system. I've outgrown the parental dependency formula and I'm probably going to switch to a different system. That, and I need more than just Mario and Zelda for my diet of video games.

One of the most consumer-facing pieces I ever wrote was about Hardcore Wii Gaming for @Gamer magazine...but it was heartfelt. I passed on the Wii for years because the media narrative around the system was "It's for kids and families!" And then I finally nabbed one because I felt I ought to if I was going to step into video game journalism, and what did I find?

You ever play No More Heroes, for example? That game was shockingly violent, considering the aforementioned media narrative. Red Steel 2? Not as graphic, but the main mechanic is still running around killing people. Monster Hunter Tri? Not for the casual gamer, etc. And while Super Mario Galaxy feels kid-and-family friendly simply on account of featuring the fat, Italian plumber, those are some hardcore platformers. I'm afraid of SMG2 after reading the reviews.

This goes to show us the power of the video game media, IMHO. My experience of the Wii tells me that the media narrative was off-base on many counts. They just chose not to focus on the hardcore gaming on the Wii because that wasn't the popular conception, which is a real shame. No point in trying to push the argument professionally anymore as the opportunity is LONG past us, and now this news of a new Nintendo console is going to slowly start pushing the Wii out of media relevancy over time...but the Wii has/had lots of potential as a "hardcore" gaming console.

@Dennis: You're right. I think we've really forgotten how hardcore the Wii games really were. Sure, there were many forgettable casual games. However, many of the games were much more challenging that we're making them out to be.

The media really has a strong way of shifting our perception. It's too easy for us to focus on the more embarassing games and advertisements in the 24/7 environment of web journalism. We've also had a tough time trying to adjust to a world of games for every type of person, from children to adults.

I'm just hoping for the day when we get to see the 3D Sonic go completely hardcore in the style of Devil May Cry. I'm sure that'll never happen, but it would look pretty awesome, in my opinion.

Wow. For all those who think gamers AKA "people who like to play video games" won't get excited about a new Nintendo console, I think the 50+ comments above are testement to the passion many still have about the company that, quite often, introduced them to the industry.

I was talking to a friend of a friend about Limbo.  I told him I'd wanted to try it, but I couldn't, since I only have a Wii.  His response? "Oh, I'm sorry, man." And it's that kind of response that drives me crazy, for all of the reasons many above have said.  There's some serious gaming to be had on Nintendo's little white box, and it has been the main source of my resurgent interest in the hobby since I moved on post college ('03) during the GC era. I know there's plenty of awesome experiences I've missed on the PS360. (And I plan to remedy that soon. Like Keith says, there's not one type of game I like to play all the time.) But I'm just as "sorry" for those that don't touch Nintendo games anymore since they think they're too "kiddie."  I just played Wario Land: Shake It for an hour, and it's a beautiful 2D platformer. And it's funny. Ha-ha! Nintendo games are funny and light-hearted. Not grey and serious. And if that dictates my world-view, well shucks, that's okay with me. Preach on, @James and @Keith.