"Talking Heads Vol 1" or "Pachter Speaks"

Michael Pachter, Wedbush Morgan Securities gaming analyst, has opened his mouth again, and honestly he's really starting to annoy me.

"...consoles offer a far better gaming experience, as they’re connected to a big screen TV in a comfortable setting, typically with a great sound system. Browser-based game [services like Instant Action, which delivers fully 3d graphically intense games] are typically going to be accessed through the PC, which offers a generally inferior experience. I know that the flamers will say that PC gaming rules, but the numbers speak for themselves: console gaming will be an $18 billion market this year, and PC gaming will be under $3 billion. The super hardcore PC gamer will be attracted to browser-based games, ...but I don’t see them putting much of a dent into the console market."

So consoles make more money overall, except that the console industry has several things going for it versus PC gaming.
A) Console gaming includes sales of consoles and peripherals, as that is their only use is to play games and maybe movies. You can't do the same for PCs. PC sales are not regulated to one industry or even a reporting agency.
B) NPD sales, widely used for the sales data in the gaming industry is not accurate (they don't take figures from Wal-Mart as far as I know, or online PC digital distribution channels such as Steam)
C) PC Gaming is region free for the most part, a game sold only in europe can be bought for a north american PC and vice versa, where as consoles are region locked usually, restricting their sales to specific territories. Import games are generally not reported.

"...The “core” Wii audience is a Mario/Zelda/Smash Bros./Metroid audience, not a Conduit audience. To the extent that the Wii is the only console that the core gamer owns, it’s likely because the only games he/she cares about are first party core titles. Most core Wii owners who care about shooter games other than Metroid already own an Xbox 360 (to play Halo or Gears), or own a PS3 (to play Resistance or Killzone). So when a game like The Conduit comes out on the Wii, these core gamers are making a comparison to Halo or Killzone, and are deciding accordingly. High Voltage did a decent job with The Conduit, especially given the graphic limitations of the Wii, but the game didn’t look and feel as good as games like Halo or Killzone, and if a gamer had both a Wii and either a PS3 or Xbox 360, it’s easy to see why they would pass on The Conduit in favor of a hard core game on one of the other platforms."

Everything is wrong with this statement... The Conduit has been considered a success selling over 150,000 copies in the first 3 weeks, and while that might not be up to the same levels of Halo 3 or Killzone 2, The Conduit probably took much less money to make requiring a lower sell-thru rate for it to be a financial success. Also, there is a big 'core' audience on the Wii, the problem is they are more willing to pass up C+ and B- games in exchange for the one or two A games that come out a year. No More Heroes was the best selling title for developer Grasshopper Manufacture. Call of Duty: World At War sold over a million units on the Wii, and games like Resident Evil sell very well on the system, as well as all the Guitar Hero and Rock Band games.

The Conduit, for all it's hype at conferences, was not the best game ever. It simply has one of the best control schemes ever created for the Wii and uses a powerful game engine. The storyline, level design, and character design are all C grade efforts, and it seems that developer High Voltage Software was worried more about the tech than it was making a cohesive game all around. Given the fact that SEGA, publisher of The Conduit see the game as a success and want to push more 'core' titles on the Wii since they do sell decently, I think we will see more 'core' games, and maybe next time High voltage will have a huge hit on their hands. (This of course assumes that The Conduit won't have a long tail and continued sales via word of mouth like other wii games seems to)

I use the term 'core' because 'casual' and 'core' are completely bullshit labels. Guitar Hero used to be core, now it's casual (especially since the Wii versions sell the best now)... Call of Duty used to be core, now it's casual (according to some)... Tiger Woods is casual, but Madden isn't (again, to some people)... obviously it's arbitrary and subjective.

You wanna know what a core game is? It's something you play because it's fun for you or you enjoy it for other reasons. you wanna know somethign that is casual? Something you play, but can easily not play it, no hard feelings. To me, Command and Conquer 3 is core, so is Myst. Call of Duty is casual, but Unreal Tournament is core. Far Cry 2 is casual, but Guild Wars is core. Mass effect is core (but only for the story and RPG aspects, not the gun play).

Casual to me are games that don't draw me in, they serve as simple distractions. Far Cry 2 might be 'core' because it has guns and great graphics and require a massive PC to run at high specs... but honestly, it's bland and boring after a few hours. It's repetitive. Same goes for Call of Duty, I can only take -kill giant group of enemies-|-more enemies spawn and take up exact same positions-|kill enemies moving slowly forward-|-cross invisible line-|-new group of enemies spawns- so many times before I grow sick of it... same goes for it's realistic multiplayer... it get's boring after a while, gimmie some huge ass guns that take out 5 people with a shot... spice it up a little.