[In Divnich Divines, EEDAR Vice President and videogame analyst Jesse Divnich traverses the bogs of sales data, hype, and good old fashioned game geekery to give you his two cents on hot topics in the game industry]
Despite months of concept art "leaks" and other rumors surrounding Nintendo's Project Café, the gaming juggernaut was still able to catch us off guard with its Wii U announcement at E3. But will the Wii U offer enough for "core" gamers, who perhaps already own an Xbox 360 or PS3 to fulfill their HD console needs?
In this new regular feature on Destructoid, I poll Jesse Divnich for his analyst perspective on current and ongoing developments in the game industry. With the initial skepticism of a multiple console owning gamer in mind, this edition's question is: "What will it take for the Wii U to become a commercial success at this stage of the console generation lifecycle?"
Divnich: "The Wii offered a completely different style of interactive entertainment versus the traditional consoles, which leads me to consider that the Wii was never a part of the "7th Generation" of consoles. I'd argue that very few consumers ever had to decide between an Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, or Nintendo Wii; rather, it was an HD experience (Xbox 360 or PS3) vs. the Wii. Just looking at the top selling Wii games makes it clear that the Wii truly offered a differential experience, since 90% of those titles can only be experienced on the Wii.
"Now this is not to say that the Wii wasn't a 'core' platform, since any true core gamer owns a Wii in addition to at least one HD console [By which Divnich means to say that most core gamers can admit to enjoying a casual gaming experience, and it's likely one of the reasons why a lot of traditional gamers own a Wii (see the comments section) -- Ed.], but we have to admit the expectation of experience on the Wii is vastly different than what one would expect on the HD consoles.
"I would caution Nintendo to stray from labeling the Wii U as a platform that delivers a core experience as its primary function. It just doesn't need to compete with the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 when they've already carved out a rather large niche market for themselves.
"The problem with the Wii U is that the platform will offer the capability of delivering a traditional HD experience, and it may give publishers an 'easy out' from having to create a truly differential experience."
"My biggest fear is that third-party publishers will simply 'port' their PS3 and Xbox 360 library over to the Wii U, while adding minimal unique features to the Wii U version. Simply put, I don't think the core community will fall for it and no one can honestly say they would purchase Assassin's Creed III for the Wii U, when they've already built a strong loyalty to the series on another platform. If someone told me they own every console and have purchased every Assassin's Creed iteration, I can bet with a high degree of certainty they likely own all iterations for the same console.
"Third-party publishers underperformed on the Wii and it took them years to finally figure out that even though the vast majority of the core community owned a Wii, we didn't want a traditional core experience. The divergence in the technology created this disparity in desired experiences. The same is true for the iPhone.
"Our data shows that over 55% of Xbox 360 consumers who play more than 10 hours a week of core gaming are also engaged in the mobile markets, yet when we look at the top-selling iOS titles, they are all casual or bite-sized experiences that would only be enjoyable on the iOS devices due to the specific technology inherent to the platform (touch screen, etc.)."
"The idea that the 'core' or 'casual' classification of a gamer is static is ridiculous. When I go to the theater, the movie I watch depends entirely on the experience I am looking to enjoy. If I am with a group of guys, we want to see something with high octane action; when I am with my wife, a romantic comedy. I believe consumers act similarly with video games.
"I am not suggesting that core ports to the Wii U will be unprofitable since the costs of porting, plus minimal Wii U integration, is likely minimal; however, what I am suggesting is that core ports have minimal reward and with our industry being risk adverse, I fear that publishers would rather make a sure penny over a potential dollar. Two years from now, when we look at the top 25 best-selling Wii U titles, I have no doubt that 90% of them will be unique in some fashion to the Wii U.
"The Wii U will be a successful platform. The question remains, however, aside from Nintendo, who else will be rolling in the profits? My guess, the ones that take full advantage of the differentiating Wii U technology."
When the Wii was first announced, many of us may have rolled our eyes but we still had slivers of hope for truly novel and unique gaming experiences. We've seen a few great games on the Wii that made good on this promise, like Zack & Wiki, although the Wii will never be remembered for its huge lineup of amazing games that absolutely required motion controls. Let's hope third-party developers and publishers will learn from the best and most creative titles the Wii library has to offer, and that they will apply those lessons when developing for the Wii U.
Not that anyone will care about shovelware and shoddy ports once an HD Zelda or Mario game is announced, of course.
Contest:
4:00 PM on 07.02.2011 | 
My 130 games on Steam gets me no Divnich cred.
/sadface
retarded statement is retarded.
This guy never defined what a "core" gamer was to him. Core gamer isn't exactly a set in stone term.
I'll be happy to buy Skyward Sword used at GameStop so they don't get my money, though.
Third party developers need to learn to stay away from Nintendo. They're only poison. Release games on a system that will sell.
A core gamer is someone who plays games quite often, usually the kind of games the average Joe or Sally would not get in to, like Gears of War or Final Fantasy.
I know I'm a core gamer and I own a Wii (largely due to being a fan of Nintendo's franchises). Just because his statements don't make sense to you does not make them automatically retarded.
You don't represent the entire "core" population.
It is a broad, nonsense statement to require a Wii.
This is only partially true. While the core gamer can certainly enjoy the casual game as well, a great many 'casual' gamers have zero interest in something like Assassin's Creed or BioShock. I learned this firsthand when I was asked to help members of my family pick out Wii games. All my suggestions were instantly dismissed, until I realized that they absolutely did not want a challenge, or anything with a story, but rather simple, mindless fun.
The Wii U will be successful because of Mario, Zelda, and the rest of the first-party gang. Nintendo approaches Apple in terms of customers who will never look at that company's products objectively. However, anyone who isn't a big Mario or Zelda fan will probably have to be convinced that Nintendo means business about wanting core gamers back. That means an online experience AT LEAST on par with PSN. It would also benefit them greatly to produce a new IP to two that can draw the interest of people who are into titles like Halo, Uncharted, Gears of War, or God of War. Basically, Nintendo needs to start working with western developers.
Price is going to be a key point if they really want casuals to buy a Wii U. If it comes in a $299, then parents looking for a family experience are going to consider other products.
Problem is I'm going to have to reply in a c-blog, because the rest of my comment is becoming uncomfortably long for the comments section.
Core gamers play the spectrum, they're the people who simply love the medium for all it has to offer. The "casual" and the "hardcore" are the same type, just on different ends of the sprctrum. Granny is just as likely to put down Wii Bowling and play a great niche (formerly normal, in console gens past) game as a CoD mook is.
The core thrives on diversity, the industry does not seem to anymore. The further away from the diversity of the past the industry drifts, the less secure it becomes. Diversifying your product covers your ass, pumping out shovelware and big budget action games en masse puts all your eggs in one basket, dulls the effect the games have on your audience, and makes your audience less likely to explore new experiences as it becomes more complacent with the status quo.
That's utterly different than what you said.
But thanks for the clarification.
I remember reading other statements from Divnich in the past which I would definitely say were insightful, so I look forward to hearing a lot more from him.
Thank you D-Toid for starting this feature!
Another interesting thing will be how well ports of titles that have already been released on PS3/360 sell on the Wii U. Will Wii owners who skipped the PS3 and 360 pick up Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed titles? How far back are publishers planning to go with ports?
In terms of new multi-platform titles, how much optimization are developers and publishers planning for the Wii U versions? Assuming the Wii U will be quite a bit more powerful than the PS3/360 (it almost has to be), are developers going to put in the extra time to make the Wii U version really shine? Will it be the unquestioned best looking, best performing multi-platform experience? If it is, will that be enough to pull gamers away from friends and clans they've already established on the other consoles?
So many questions. It makes you realize just how very little we know about the Wii U.
As a person who's owned every Nintendo system since the NES, I don't have much interest in the Wii U, especially given Nintendo of America's recent behavior in giving gamers the finger. One can't practically expect that NoA will change its tune when it comes to localization. NoA needs a shakeup badly.
I don't have to go around saying I'm a "hardcore gamer" mostly because there comes a point where people tell me to STFU about games. There's a sign of where I stand. People know.
But in marketing and analystese "core" means someone that knows what Zelda, Halo and Uncharted are and likely play those games - it doesn't mean every "core" does. These are not the people who only know Angry Birds and Wii Sports, If you don't play Zelda, but do play Darksiders or Okami, grats, you kinda know Zelda anyway. You still qualify.
In closing: Those that feel you're not considered "core": Get over yourselves.
One could devise a way to make a rough comparison between the different groups based on hours spent on gaming per week, or dollars spent on games per month...
Incidentally, that's pretty much the data Nintendo collect on the Nintendo channel ;)
Just because the term is misused, and often abused by the industry in an attempt to make the most prominent consumers feel like the most prominent gamers doesn't mean the term can't be used at all. /
It is a good point, though, to mention that any time any industry head mentions anything like "casual" "core" "hardcore" etc., it is typically complete bullshit. These people think in numbers, and they are using these terms in relation to current market standards which, frankly, are wildly skewed compared to all previous generations.
I think that, by itself, shows how much respect the industry has for the gamers that supported it before it was capable of mainstream greatness, that all gamers get lummped into categories based on this new, seemingly self destructive market. They pump billions into capturing the mainstream market, which was wholly successful with this console gen. But when you pump so much money into one demographic that was pulled in by your willingness to spend money on it in the first place, that market will demand more and more of what that money buys. With little creative room to innovate, separation between games comes more in the form of production values, driving prices even higher, and making the market more dependent on them. Meanwhile the diversity that drove the core for 6 previous console gens falls victim to the bubble forming, and the core gets redefined by the industry to suit the only consumer base still making it money.
The Wii U will likely get written off, just like the Wii. Funny how some people here say stupid shit like that, then get all up in arms when great Wii games that have almost no mainstream appeal don't get brought to us. Whn great Wii U games don't get localized for the same reason, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
A few token "hardcore" games does not displace the shovel ware this thing is likely to be sporting ...
As a huge zelda fan who has played every zelda game and purchased several Nintendo consoles entirely for the promise of a new zelda ..... I can say without hesitation that the Wii U is a total pass.
Sony might have let my info leak due to their bungling ineptitude but at least they know how to release games I'm interested in. If NOA can prove they are serious about the whole core gamer schtick then maybe I'll reconsider .... otherwise PS4 here I come.
Games like Tales of symphonia and Skies of Arcadia (even tho I already owned that on the Dreamcast!) I'd actually have to dig through my collection to give a comprehensive list as I've been pretty much exclusively PC gaming for the last year or two.
Either way, I hope an MMO comes to the Wii U that will use the screen as a keyboard.
Don't get me wrong, I've played and enjoyed one or two wii games with my girlfriend (who actually owns the wii) but I would never have bought one on my own. Keep in mind one of those games was Monster Hunter Tri- a bafflingly online-centric title on a bafflingly online-inept system.
Will the WiiU sell well? I think it's going to be a 3DS situation. It'll sell quite decently, but will be considered a "failure" due to not matching the explosive numbers of its predecessors. I also forsee a drought of compelling software, since Nintendo consoles pretty much rely on first party or no party traditionally and I just haven't seen the same sort of "get up and go" that nintendo used to have. It just seems they've lost the ability to effectively launch a console without really making the previous console look like a second-class citizen. (Remember how Twilight Princess was delayed and delayed and delayed- presumably to make it a Wii launch title?)
But I agree, the Wii U's (damn it, I hope I don't have to call it that continually) success with the core gaming populace will depend on its lineup of games, not on its tech.
"Core gamer isn't exactly a set in stone term"
Yes, which means there is room for interpretation. This guy just offered his interpretation of the phrase. I agree with his statement, because the Wii offers a completely different experience than the PS3 and 360, meaning if you're going to try out the widest expanse of current games out there, you'd need a Wii to do it. And that's what "core" gamer means to me--he just happened to leave out PC gaming. It's not a retarded statement, just an opinion that isn't yours.
As for the rest of the article and everyone else in the comments--there's not much point in hypothesizing too much. Nobody can predict the future, so it's impossible to tell right now exactly how the console will perform. If the price is reasonable I feel like I can guarantee it will at least be an initial success. Even though many of you would like to believe it won't be, there are enough Nintendo fanboys and gamers who are generally excited (plus families) that will most likely make the console a success at launch.
It's mostly because of the Wii. Suddenly there were people buying video consoles who had never had an interest in them before (at least not as adults). They weren't buying them for Mario, either, but instead for Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Just Dance, and Zumba Fitness. They represented a different market, so terms evolved that separated the person who would play anything, especially traditional games, from the person who bought a Wii to lose weight. In that regard, I think 'casual' is a more important distinction, as it represents a very focused market that has very little interest in traditional video game elements.
Also, since 'casual' is a new market, it's also one that is going to be hard to predict. Does the casual market have a low or a high price ceiling? Are they interested in "upgrading" the way traditional gamers are, or will they be happen to stick with their Wii until it dies? Will they even be interested in replacing their Wii if it does die? Will they be scared off by the new Wii U controller?
Don't scoff at that last question either, as a lot of people have said that traditional controllers intimidate them. I remember a newspaper article that sang the praises of the Wii, mostly because the writer claimed to be turned off by the seeming complexity of standard controllers.
You absolutely do NOT need a Wii to experience the spectrum of gaming experiences.
The DS does everything the Wii does but better, and offers a larger game library, filled to the brim with classic and casual experiences. The iPhone and 3DS offer gyroscope experiences not found on the Wii. The 3DS and PS3 offer the unique experience of 3D.
By that definition, you'd need to buy every single console and device to be a "core": the Wii was just arbitrarily chosen.
How about a simpler definition? How about something as easy as "do you play games 5 or more hours a week?" Not everyone can afford a Wii and an HD console, and you shouldn't be left out of this analysis because you don't own one.