Do you Wii?

[Asher]

Originally posted by ZargonX
Asher, you do understand that Nintendo is perfectly happy to sell a couple million extra units to "90-year old bridge players," right? There are only so many "hardcore" gamers out there, and if you think companies only care about their hArdc0rxness, you are sadly mistaken.

I know what Nintendo's trying to do, and it's the smart thing to do considering they don't have the capacity (in many ways) to compete with MS. That still doesn't make it less funny that many people here share the same thrilling interests as 90 year old retired people.

[Guynemer]

Frankly, Asher, the way you carry on over and over about stuff like this, I'd rather share their interests than yours.

[Asher]

Good on you, Guy. Maybe you should learn to play croquet, too.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Asher
Wii: Endorsed by 90-year old Bridge players.

Seeing that baby-boomers are currently the largest segment of the population, are in ther 60's, 70's, and 80's, hold more expendable capitol than any other demographic - I don't think that's a bad demographic to shoot for.

Hmm, do I try and get a little money out of the 20 -30 year olds or do I get $250 a pop from the largest demographic with the most expendable income?

I think I'll go for the expendable income.

Tom P.

[Asher]

Originally posted by padillah
hold more expendable capitol than any other demographic - I don't think that's a bad demographic to shoot for.

Hmm, do I try and get a little money out of the 20 -30 year olds or do I get $250 a pop from the largest demographic with the most expendable income?

I think I'll go for the expendable income.

Tom P.

Since when did 80 year old people have the most expendable income????

That's absurd.

If you want to make money in games, it's young males in the 20-30 crowd with the expendable income. Why do you think Wii software sales suck? Because the new markets Nintendo's trying to open up tend not to have much expendable income. There's a reason it's been largely ignored, much like how blockbusters movies are seldom made targeting the 80 year old crowd.

[ZargonX]

Asher, you are way wrong, demographically speaking. Ignoring hyperbole, Nintendo is shooting to bring in the 50+ crowd, which, in American and Japan especially, is HUGE. Also, the Baby Boomers in the US are the ones with the most expendable income, and will be looking for plenty of ways to spend it. It is a smart move, and the only way it hurts them is with thick-headed fanboys like yourself who scoff at the idea, but most likely wouldn't have been buying it anyway. Harm done to Nintendo? 0. Profit to Nintendo? High. Why do you think MS keeps talking about tapping the casual games market? They know the money is there to be made, and they want to cash in on it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by ZargonX
Asher, you are way wrong, demographically speaking. Ignoring hyperbole, Nintendo is shooting to bring in the 50+ crowd, which, in American and Japan especially, is HUGE. Also, the Baby Boomers in the US are the ones with the most expendable income, and will be looking for plenty of ways to spend it. It is a smart move, and the only way it hurts them is with thick-headed fanboys like yourself who scoff at the idea, but most likely wouldn't have been buying it anyway. Harm done to Nintendo? 0. Profit to Nintendo? High. Why do you think MS keeps talking about tapping the casual games market? They know the money is there to be made, and they want to cash in on it.

Casual gamer market is not the same as the 50+ demographic.

I strongly suggest you look up debt load per demographic if you think the 50+ crowd is where the money is for video games.

The 20-30 age range is the sweet spot. There is money in the 50+ crowd, but to think it compares with the 20-30 crowd who may buy 12-15 games per year, you're crazy...

[Asher]

also, reading iz funnnn

It is a smart move, and the only way it hurts them is with thick-headed fanboys like yourself who scoff at the idea,

Originally posted by Asher
I know what Nintendo's trying to do, and it's the smart thing to do

[ZargonX]

The 20-30 age range is the sweet spot. There is money in the 50+ crowd, but to think it compares with the 20-30 crowd who may buy 12-15 games per year, you're crazy...

Of course it doesn't, at the moment. That's the whole idea behind opening up a new market.

Odds are, you probably won't get 50+ buying 12-15 games a year, but even if they buy just 6, that's 6 more games you wouldn't have sold. You seem to think that trying to open up a new market means that they are abandoning the 20-30 range, which is not accurate. They may be focusing efforts elsewhere, but I have no doubt there will be plenty catering to that market as well, in time. Don't forget, the 360 had crap for games for the first year, and the Wii is only at the 4-month mark right now; still plenty of time to see what's coming.

[Asher]

Originally posted by ZargonX
Of course it doesn't, at the moment. That's the whole idea behind opening up a new market.

Odds are, you probably won't get 50+ buying 12-15 games a year, but even if they buy just 6, that's 6 more games you wouldn't have sold. You seem to think that trying to open up a new market means that they are abandoning the 20-30 range, which is not accurate.

They don't have to abandon it at all for their support in a demographic to weaken. That's PRECISELY what's happened to Nintendo over the years as they continue to try to "widen their consumer base". The console simply isn't cool for the young crowd if their grandparents are playing it in "the home"...

The whole market is far more complex than you seem to think it is.

Don't forget, the 360 had crap for games for the first year, and the Wii is only at the 4-month mark right now; still plenty of time to see what's coming.

You're completely correct, of course. The 360 had no killer app like Zelda in its first four months, and still had a higher attach ratio of games to hardware than the Wii at the same point in time of its lifecycle, quite significantly so...

[asleepathewheel]

What is the point, really?

[Asher]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
What is the point, really?

More game sales = more games developed = more variety = more fun.

[ZargonX]

There isn't one. I made the foolish mistake of giving in to Asher's incessant trolling. I apologize to everyone involved

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Asher

More game sales = more games developed = more variety = more fun.

Seems like N fits the bill on all of those counts, esp on variety of games, so I don't see the point in your arguments. Its not the one trick fps/racing pony that previous systems have been labeled as.

[Asher]

How does it fit the bill if game sales are noticeably slow?