N-Banter Edition 14: A Non-Gamer Revolution?
Column by Jeffrey Van Camp, Cory Faller
Edition: 03-13-2006
Two minds...one column. Two motives...one goal. Two editors...one conversation. You have now entered a dimension unlike any other. This is N-Banter.
In this edition, a post of mine sparks a heated debate regarding whether or not the Revolution is in competition with the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.
Jeffrey: Read my forum post. Am I off base?
Cory: I dunno, when he [Smaug] said that I kind of agreed with it.
Jeffrey: I didn't.
Cory: I see it kind of like corvettes and sedans. The two cars aren't completely competing. Sure, if you buy a car, you buy a car. But very different people will buy one type over the other, to the point where the two markets can thrive simultaneously.
Jeffrey: If the Revolution and PS3 aren't in competition then neither were the N64 and PlayStation.
Cory: That makes no sense whatsoever, Jeff. The PS1 and N64 targeted the exact same markets.
Jeffrey: No they didn't.
Cory: Yes, they did. You're misremembering the past.
Jeffrey: I remember very clearly.
Cory: The GameCube, PS2, and Xbox all targeted the same market. So did the SNES and Genesis, as did the N64 and PS1. If you remember differently, you remember incorrectly. There's nothing else to it. This is the FIRST time a console has EXPRESSLY said that they're targeting a totally new market.
Jeffrey: The PS1 went after an older audience through marketing, advertising, and the games it selected to push -- a different path from that of Nintendo and its family image. In fact, Nintendo even stated around 2000 (many times) that the GameCube wasn't in competition with the other systems, thereby meaning they're targeting a different market.
Cory: Marketing images are irrelevant.
Jeffrey: No they're not.
Cory: The machines had the same type of software.
Jeffrey: Not really. Currently, the only difference between Revolution and PS3 / Xbox 360 is a new controller, something Nintendo is known for innovating.
Cory: I don't care what they say, it's what they DO. Every generation has had largely identical software across all systems. Barring any semantics, that's why ports work.
Cory: The hardware is virtually the same, the controllers are virtually the same; it's all the same. The Revolution is the first one to be TRULY different -- to base the hardware expressly around the new concept. The lack of power, the remote, those exist to target a new market. A market that has issues with control and that doesn't care much about power.
Jeffrey: The Nintendo 64 controller was very different from the PS1's. It was designed around the concept of 3D gaming. The PS1 later mimicked it.
Cory: You may try to tell me the N64 was similar to the Revolution in philosophy, with its new controller designed around 3D games. That's not true in the least, though.
Jeffrey: The N64 was designed from the ground up for fully 3D games like Mario 64. The PS1 was not in both controller design and software direction. They offered different gaming experiences in the end. The PS1 offered many more cinematic adventures and RPGs as well. The N64 offered Nintendo games geared toward more of a multiplayer party crowd.
Cory: It was tailored to new gameplay, true. But that gameplay was not targeting a different market at all. It was the same market.
Jeffrey: Cory, it was a new type of gaming.
Cory: A "new type of gaming" is not relevant. Not in this discussion. The N64 was new, yes, but the concept of gaming did not change. It was a new dimension, not a new target. The Revolution games are different not only for the "newness", but EXPRESSLY to target new people. This is the first time that Nintendo has clearly stated that their hardware design, their entire hardware and software philosophy, is to target a new group of gamers. Not just a new type of gameplay, but new GAMERS.
Jeffrey: Gaming changed fundamentally with the added dimension. We don't know what Revolution games will be like, but if the DS is any indication they will be innovative and traditional — attempting to target both old and new audiences.
Cory: I never said it didn't change. Nor did I say they aren't going to still cater to existing gamers, like with the DS. They have said they will, quite clearly. But, and this is historical FACT, this is the first time the design philosophy was targeted towards different PEOPLE. Not just different ideas, but ideas designed around the IDEA of different people.
Cory: 3D games weren't made "for a new set of gamers" -- for "girls and grandparents." It was for the same gamers -- the same people from the last generation. It was new exciting play for the same people. And yes, the Rev will be that as well, but it's being DRIVEN by the idea that it will be digestible by the common man.
Jeffrey: It doesn't matter what Nintendo says or who it claims to be targeting. The fact is that sure, maybe some new people will buy these, but there will also be a large faction of people who are already gamers. Nintendo has always attempted to create simpler games that attract a broad spectrum of people. I just don't see how attracting new gamers this way is any different than the millions of new gamers that come aboard the PlayStation or Xbox train each generation as kids grow up.
Cory: I don't completely agree with Smaug [a member of the N-Forums, referenced in the forums post mentioned at the start of this dialog] anyway. He's always had the opinion that Nintendo is ONLY catering to new gamers, which just isn't true. There will be competition just because the system is being designed for both markets. If they only made games like Brain Training, then you could fairly say it's not competition; that they're in completely different markets. It's like cars for people with legs, and without legs. Sure, they're both cars, but they're designed for TOTALLY different people.
Jeffrey: It's still games. It would be like comparing GBA to PS2. Different audiences and the GBA attracts a ton of new gamers. In the broad spectrum of all games and systems sold though, they are in competition.
Cory: And as for "not seeing how it's different," those machines [PS2 and Xbox] didn't bring new people because of what they were. Those were just people who were in the market for gaming, finally, and picked a box. The idea with the Rev is that it will recruit people that would not normally have looked at games because of their fundamental concepts. The Xbox did not attract any new gamers that would not have normally been gamers. Nor did the PS2. The Revolution is aiming to do just that.
Jeffrey: How can you say that? Both the Xbox and PS2 did precisely that.
Cory: Because there was nothing NEW about them, Jeff. If nothing CHANGES, then THEY were not to blame. The people would have become gamers with or without them.
Jeffrey: I don't think so. I know a lot of people who bought that thing to play Halo online / LAN. Some of which had never played games until that point. It's all about new ideas. GTA attracted new people to gaming. Xbox Live attracted people to gaming. There's no way to say that these people would be gamers with or without the array of unique titles each system offers.
Cory: I will not agree that consoles and handhelds are in competition. With that logic, consoles and board games are in competition. "They're all games."
Jeffrey: They are in the broadest spectrum, but it's irrelevant because Revolution is a console. Board games might be in competition with Revolution if it offers lots of board games. I dunno Cory.
Cory: Jeff, everything is in competition with everything. They all cost money. The opportunity cost of an item is valued in what you could've bought otherwise.
Jeffrey: Revolution has a new Smash Bros, a new FF, a new Zelda, and a new Mario releasing for it right off the bat. Regardless of the new way they control, those are not outright attracting NEW people. They may by way of their awesomeness, but they are attracting just as many current gamers if not more.
Cory: Which is why I said I didn't agree with Smaug. As he refuses to admit, it DOES target both markets. But I understand what he's saying. The new market it's targeting is not technically a competitive one. Those are the people who will either buy the Rev or buy nothing. It's brilliant business sense, attacking a market where you're totally uncontested.
Jeffrey: I don't see non-gamers as a new market. Innovative concepts drive increased sales. Katamari Damacy likely sparked a lot of new people to get a PS2. Pokémon sparked millions to get a Game Boy.
Cory: How do you not see them as a new market? They are, by definition, the ONLY new market. If you play games, you're the current market.
Jeffrey: Yeah and if you don't you aren't. Every gaming system has been attracting this new market at a steady rate or we wouldn't have young gamers today.
Cory: Of course they have. But Nintendo has cited declines in that behavior. Physical evidence in Japan, and theoretically predicted in the US. That is WHY they are doing this. The DS explosion in Japan is clear proof that, at least in Japan, they're right. There were lines of people waiting for the DS Lite that weren't gamers.
Jeffrey: And lines of people waiting that were gamers.
Cory: How many times are you going to belabor that point, Jeff, while ignoring mine? Are you telling me that attracting additional markets is not a good idea? That the DS ISN'T being fueled by a massive non-gamer influx? It's just a coincidence that the demographics and types of games being sold support that?
Jeffrey: I made my point clear in the post. Yeah, Nintendo is trying harder to drive new sales by simplifying games (by changing interface style to be more intuitive) but it is still in direct competition with the PS3 as much as any other system. They are both taking different approaches to attracting new gamers. If Sony didn't think that better graphics and online play would drive new game sales, it would be doing precisely what Nintendo's doing. Microsoft thinks it's attracting new gamers with its innovative online system.
Cory: I take issue with your claim in your post -- the GameCube / PS2 analogy. You say they "attracted varied audiences," which is great. But it doesn't mean they DIRECTLY targeted different audiences. The PS2 overflowed with cutesy colorful games, and Nintendo routinely tried to convince us that it was catering to the mature gamer, even though they failed.
Jeffrey: That was the weaker of the analogies. But they did directly target different audiences. Nintendo often stated as much. If they didn't, why do sports games never sell on GameCube?
Cory: Jeff, if they targeted completely different audiences they wouldn't even HAVE sports games on the GameCube. The fact was, virtually ALL of the big sports games were on ALL of the machines, regardless of whether or not they sold.
Jeffrey: There won't be sports games on Revolution?
Cory: It's your retarded analogy, not mine. Just because people didn't buy them, it doesn't mean they weren't there. Nintendo didn't try to MAKE a non-sports-buying audience, it just happened. If they were trying, there would be no sports games, simple as that.
Jeffrey: It happened due to the software direction and decisions of Nintendo. Each of the three systems attracted a slightly different audience. They overlap, I'm not denying that. But each catered to different subsets of the gaming population.
Cory: Yes, they did. I won't argue that.
Jeffrey: That's all I said!
Cory: But you keep ignoring the point that the Rev isn't just aiming at a different subset of the gaming population. It's aiming at a different subset of the POPULATION. It's the first machine to DIRECTLY target non-gamers. Not just by increasing what they've previously had, not with bigger better graphics, or more robust online, but with something brand new, untested, and designed directly to attract the people that the normal improvements wouldn't attract.
Jeffrey: Yeah but Cory...it will have bigger graphics and more robust online.
Cory: Yes, and those are there for the existing fans. I'm talking about a fundamental aspect of Nintendo's strategy, not every single thing they are doing. For the umpteenth time, they are targeting both audiences, but that's one more audience than the PS3 and 360 are targeting. I bet they'd LOVE to have non-gamers suddenly playing their boxes. But they're not directly targeting them with a brand new strategy designed exclusively for them, which is what Nintendo is doing. They're appealing to a un-appealed-to market in ADDITION to the normal market.
Jeffrey: See, and that's great. I have never denied that Nintendo is going for both. Not once.
Cory: You denied that it was any different. You implied directly that they did the same thing with the GameCube, which is just flat out untrue.
Jeffrey: I'm saying that Microsoft and Sony are taking their own routes toward attracting non-gamers, just as Nintendo is. Half of the DS software started on the GameCube [Jeff: I immediately regretted saying "half"].
Cory: Two titles started on the GameCube, Jeff. And how is that even relevant. Nintendogs would've been fundamentally different, same with Yoshi Touch and Go. There would be no touching. Just... going? "Yoshi Goes."
Jeffrey: Jungle Beat, connectivity, Animal Crossing, etc. Nintendogs isn't a new concept either. It's been done. Just not as well.
Cory: Yes, those were certainly there. But they were auxiliary. They were few and far between. They were exceptions, not rules. With the Rev, they ARE the rule. Those games were Nintendo starting on their new path.
Jeffrey: How do we know Revolution won't be the same? Right now we only know of one new franchise at launch. Pikmin was new at launch and offered new experiences.
Cory: It has nothing to do with new franchises. It could be all Marios and shit for all I know. The gameplay type is the key thing. And sure, Pikmin was new, but it was gamer new.
Jeffrey: That's an opinion.
Cory: How is that an opinion? Compare Pikmin to Brain Training or Nintendogs. If you can't easily put them in separate camps, you have a mental disease.
Jeffrey: Where are the stats to back up that? Pikmin could appeal to anyone. I don't know the people who bought it. I think it was a very simple game with a universal appeal. A new experience. The only thing that separates that from a new type of Revolution game is the controller.
Cory: I don't understand how something so obvious to me is requiring so much explanation, or how you're apparently treating the controller as such a trivial addition. The "only thing". It's the crux of the entire concept.
Jeffrey: It's not trivial, but it isn't everything. Games aren't going to fundamentally change entirely. They'll adapt and some new stuff will pop up along the way, just as it always has, perhaps to an increased degree. But I don't think it's going to universally change the entire appeal of games. It's just going to add a new subset.
Cory: No, but it will begin eliminating barriers to entry. That's why the controller is a remote, to break down a mental barrier. The lack of buttons is both a mental and physical barrier.
Jeffrey: Yeah but then you have attachments.
Cory: In a perfect world, there would be no attachments. But anyway, games might be identical across platform, but the Revolution version, in theory, would be more inviting. Even complex gameplay, if possessing simplified control, could be more easily digested by a newcomer. Thus the very concept of Super Smash Bros. The Rev controller applies this philosophy to all software en-masse.
Jeffrey: Ah, so then how is that fundamentally appealing to a new audience? That's like the Xbox version of a game having online play. It attracts an audience concerned with that.
Cory: Online play is a feature, not an interface, or method of direct interaction. It might draw you to it, but it wouldn't make it any easier for a new gamer to begin interacting with it. And let me just say, people aren't idiots. New gamers can certainly handle controllers; that's how the market's expanded since the NES. But the Rev is attempting to attract the market that hasn't been able to handle it. Or, more accurately, that hasn't been INTERESTED. Even if someone could adapt after some time, the fact remains that many MANY people just don't care enough. They'd like to be playing immediately. If they aren't, screw it. They have jobs, lives, better things to be worrying about (the very reason a lot of parents aren't avid gamers).
Jeffrey: I know all of that and of course agree. I just think that yeah it may be also targeting these non-gamers, but the competition is trying to target its own set of non-gamers. Microsoft is specifically targeting non-gamers by trying to usher in what it calls the HD era. PS2 attempted to target a new audience by packaging in a DVD player. PS3 through freaking Blu-Ray drives and god knows what else. There are barriers to entry, yeah, but if someone buys a PS2 for the DVD player then they are still more likely to become interested in PS2 games.
Cory: Think about that, though. The Xbox 360 emphasizing HD. How does that target non-gamers again? Because people with HDTVs are starved for content, and will hook up anything that outputs above 480p?
Jeffrey: Listen to any of MS's speeches and they'll tell you how it does for two hours straight. Whether or not it's going to work, I don't know. I can't be the judge of that.
Cory: I know all about them trying to usher in the "HD Generation." I just don't see how it's related to new gamers. If anything, it targets a very specific subset: people that have disposable income to spend on HD technology. It's telling the gaming public that in order to enjoy their games at the fullest, they'd better freaking invest. It's the OPPOSITE of what Nintendo's saying, interestingly enough. They're trying to tell people that EVERYONE should be able to play, due to easy-to-digest control and low price points. And I dunno about you, but "everyone" seems like a better potential market to me than "rich people."
Jeffrey: Well yeah, I agree naturally. But Microsoft believes that it's path will lead to growth. What I truly see is the console manufacturers diverging on where they see the future of gaming and how to drive future growth. They all want non-gamers. Technically each new console generation means that all current gamers might as well be non-gamers. You have to re-convince them of why your product is worth their time and what new things it will offer. Microsoft took tons of steps to simplify Xbox Live to attract a new generation of HD gamers. They define the HD generation gamer and everything. They're trying to attract audiences by catering to their personality and expanding the social aspects of multiplayer/online gaming.
Jeffrey: I just see all the end goals as the same. They all want to sell the most consoles and though the Rev will be somewhat weaker, it's still offering a significant step up from what we have now in terms of graphics and some other things. The only difference is that Nintendo sees its audience outside the confines of what traditional console upgrades have been. They want some more pick up and play action. Sony and Microsoft seem to believe that they can get new consumers to adapt by offering them so many other incentives.
Cory: You might want to edit your forums post, or make an addendum. Because I think you've stated your point much better in that last paragraph. That, theoretically, they're all shooting for non-gamers. Nintendo's just being more blatant about it.
Jeffrey: Yep. Okay. I see what you mean.
So there was a consensus in the end, more or less. While all three console manufacturers are shooting to attract the non-gaming crowd, and always have been, Nintendo's taking a chance by shooting for them much more directly. They're branching out from the past methodology and wagering that the non-gaming and gaming crowds want more than just enhanced technology.
Got an opinion of your own? Shoot it our way at qa@n-sider.com.