Why did you just quote me? I'm talking about the 3ds and trying to correct someone who said it sold "poorly" then picked up in sales a "little" when infact it is the fastest selling console in the world. Oh, and I don't really like the wii. I don't like the 360 or the ps3 either for that matter. I hardly play console games and will be playing them even less in the near future.Crono1973 said:
Core and Casual refers to both type of games and attitudes toward them. It doesn't mean that a core gamer won't buy a casual game or vice versa, but casual gamers will probably be more attracted to casual games and vice versa. Since casual means that the person isn't gaming all that much, it's likely that he's not buying as many games as a core gamer. With that in mind, I think it makes sense to treat a core gamer like several casual gamers, and then see which type of games has more market. I think that a console that doesn't appeal much to core gamers, isn't as profitable as one that is. Note that in order for a console to be successful, it is more important to sell games than consoles, since consoles are often sold with minimal profit to its company, and sometimes even at a loss (see 3DS).malestrithe said:
You think it is just a gimmick and you do not like it. People have bought 17 million of the damn things, though I don't think that the 3d is necessarily the reason why.Crono1973 said:
Um, I'm sorry, but that's not the way things actually happened. Gamers didn't abandon Nintendo. Third party developers did. And they abandoned them because Nintendo thought they were untouchable, stuck with expensive cartridges lacking in storage space, and still charged hefty licensing fees to use them, not to mention spending years censoring games on their system.VinLAURiA said:
That entirely depends on if you need that group to grow your market share, and how stable a group it is in terms of revenue. Or even more basically, if you're actually interested in growing your market share to begin with.
I didn't say that it didn't. But what makes a successful gaming platform are the games. As far as I'm concerned, it can have only a D-Pad and 2 buttons as long as it has great games. And now I feel compelled to dust off my old Gameboy Color and play Pokemon Gold.Innegativeion said:
Reported!Revnak said:
I'm pretty sure you missed my double negative.AzrealMaximillion said:
Wait... what? It's the publisher's job to advertise the game. (Still, Nintendo do advertise third-party games on the Nintendo Channel, among other outlets.) The closest you'll get to the console manufacturer doing the ad campaign is when, as an example, Microsoft give Electronic Arts some money so that Xbox 360 will be the most prominent platform in the ads. Like, "OUT NOW ON XBOX 360! (Also PC and PlayStation 3.)"AzrealMaximillion said:
Well, both of those things happened, I would say, and the one fed into the other. Licensing and hardware issues were a motivator for some developers, but largely it was a matter of seeing the growth of the PS1 user base.Vivi22 said:
Because that's not what I'm talking about and that's not what he was in the sentence I quoted him in. He was talking about sales figures and he was very wrong about them.Crono1973 said:
One of the biggest success stories of the PS1 was Final Fantasy VII and Square said that it was the storage space that led them to release on the PS1 instead of the N64. Also I think there was something about Nintendo not allowing them to release their games on other systems. You'll notice that with the start of Square putting FF on the PS1, they also released 2 FF games on PC. They didn't sell well but that apparently would have never been possible with Nintendo.JediMB said:
