Spending just a little time in the thick of things can really relate you to the pulse of public sentiment. Recently I was surprised to find how many people consider the Nintendo Wii an abomination. They blame “casual gamers” for their influence, and Nintendo for attending to them. They cite low attachment ratios (the number of games sold per console) for proof that the Wii is not a success, and insist these numbers are explained by smart hardware that is hampered by a subpar game library.

According to Nintendo’s second-quarter 2008 earnings, the Wii maintains a higher attachment ratio than the DS and the Gameboy Advance, and is led only by the Gamecube. Considering the Wii’s hardware sales have already overcome the Gamecube’s, it probably wouldn’t be fair to call the Wii unsuccessful by business standards.

The Wii’s game library may never see a sharp turn toward great numbers of games for Nintendo loyalists. Instead, we may continue to see them only on occasion, as we have with Mario Kart Wii and Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

Personally, I’ve tried the Wii but only briefly. I don’t own one for the above reason: there hasn’t been a watershed game, or collection of games, convincing me to purchase the console (but there are plenty I’d like to try). Although the choice of titles so far might not appeal to me, I do recognize the power of the platform and the way it has shifted the perception of interactive games. More weighty than the issue of the Wii’s success for Nintendo are the implications for future hardware, and the impact on a population newly aware of modern video games.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

PROFILE: The person who did not previously play video games, but who now owns a Wii, is not a “casual gamer.” He is a consumer fascinated with an unfamiliar new hobby. He is not a connoisseur of video games and has little interest in sitting stationary for hours, engrossed in complicated game rules, navigating traditional controllers with more buttons. He is attracted by physical activity’s place in Wii games like Wii Sports and Guitar Hero; they don’t look like typical games intended for the “gamer” culture. Their presentations are not intimidating. His foremost motivation for buying a Wii is curiosity.

This is a very different demographic than the people who play few games that include only popular titles like Halo, Call of Duty, and World of Warcraft. With 11 million World of Warcraft subscribers, 8 million sales for Halo 3, and over 10 million for Call of Duty 4, it is probably true, by overwhelming numbers, that the people who play these games do so casually rather than for cutthroat competition.

Neither of these terms — casual gamers and hardcore gamers — has any definitive meaning. But if people are accusing each other of being casual gamers, there’s a discrepancy. The Wii player above roughly describes what I would call an “athletic gamer.” Games like DDR, Guitar Hero, and Rock Band are, as of now, mostly a new phenomenon in homes, but athletic games like these are the only ones guaranteed a spot in arcades and amusement areas soon, when less and less arcade hardware is manufactured, phased out by home consoles.

The Wii is revolutionary in its versatile design; you can bowl, box, sword fight, and perform an infinite number of other virtual activities with a device that’s smaller than your TV’s remote control. It conserves space, is priced affordably, and is simple enough to be used by anyone of any age. The people who feel mistreated by Nintendo don’t understand that these games were meant to be a different experience than previous Nintendo works; they weren’t made explicitly for “gamers.”

JUST LIKE OLD TIMES

Thinking about it that way, I can’t help but see a linearity. It seems strange that you can drop in at any game forum and expect that everyone present will be familiar with all games on all consoles. It seems strange that so many games are multiplatform. It seems strange that choosing one console over another has for so long been decided by the handful of standout titles available as “exclusives” to each console.

For the past few generations, the consoles themselves haven’t stood for anything; they promised access to a few flagship games…plus everything that everyone else gets. When looking at video games not as we’ve known them for the past 10 years, but as a hobby described as nothing more specific than ’interaction between player and computer’, everything suddenly appears generic. There is no one console which promises speed, action, and a “pick-up-and-play” arcade fun with friends, versus another which specializes in intimate, atmospheric stories and mature challenges, versus another which offers athletic games like DDR.

To say that the Wii is for casual gamers or that it’s a threat to the progress of game design just would not be the truth. Wii has, however slightly, divided players in a way reminiscent of the 1990s, when many available consoles themed games by the hardware on which they ran: Sega Genesis touted speed; Neo-Geo was the gateway to faithful arcade ports; and Panasonic 3DO and Atari Jaguar employed early CD technology. Multiplatform games existed, but for many of them, their versions differed from each other completely (See Shadowrun, Robocop vs The Terminator).

Obviously, dealing with hardware technology was more of a challenge back then, and one might argue that having a variety of genres and games available regardless of console is the best situation for a player. But if every feature and game were available to all consoles, marketing would be left to fight for customers, not product innovation. Hardware companies have already anticipated this. Nintendo’s answer was the Wii. Microsoft is focusing on their online services, and of course pushing the high-definition support of the Xbox 360. Sony’s PS3 attraction is the Blu-Ray DVD compatibility. (For the current generation, Sony has said they have a ten year lifecycle planned for the PS3, but it will struggle when the next generation of Microsoft and Nintendo consoles are modeled after lessons learned in this one.)

You’ve heard developers complain about the way game companies are run and products are sold. And you’ve heard about budgets, risk, and intellectual property for sequels. If the linearity I mention is the result of game companies being conducted by business people rather than people who are passionate about games, it’s no wonder so many gamers classify all people as either a.) the ones who take games seriously or b.) the ones who don’t.

The summary of all this is that we’re long overdue for a more thorough caste of players. “Casual gamers” and “hardcore gamers” no longer describe players as they are now, let alone what they’re pressing toward. Eventually, as niche interests are identified and consumers better understood (as has already happened with the internet), gamers may find they fit into many classes:

• FPS Gamers
• MMO Gamers
• Cinematic Gamers
• Athletic Gamers
• Retro Gamers
• RPG Gamers

But of course these are all just guesses. We’ll let the industry worry about the names.

Links

Nintendo Q2 Earnings Report

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed! Hate this post and want to write a better one? Join us!