Nintendo alone can't offer the same amount of arrange PS3/360 can offer and most of the games you mentioned are games aimed at casuals.
They really aren't, except for Just Dance and Skylanders -- which, again, have done best on Nintendo's systems. The demographic variety on Nintendo's platforms is backed up by actual evidence; the last we saw of the demographics, the PS3 and 360 were
eighty percent male. Eighty percent. Just for reference, even American football is less lopsided than that.
I know you defend Nintendo going after the casual crowd but this wouldn't be a wise decision because how unstable and unreliable this audience is.
Okay, now I see what you're getting at. This just isn't correct. There isn't some inherent, "unreliable" property of casual gamers; it is instead a very common occurrence with new market segments. New market sectors start out with lots of competition and turnover in leadership, and then the markets gradually mature and become stable and reliable (but also less profitable).
Consider the hardcore gaming market, for example. Thirty five years ago, we saw enormous turnover: Atari, Collecovision, and Magnavox were all early casualties of the market, and 3D0, Phillips, SNK, and even Apple were casualties a bit later. It has only been the last ~10-15 years that the market has been "stable" with less turnover and more reliable, consistent market leaders.
Similarly, the casual market is not inherently unstable; it is, like every market once was, one in its nascency. It is less predictable because we understand it less well, in turn because the "causal" market has only really existed for about a decade. "Hardcore" gaming, by contrast, is now a more stable but also much less profitable market, which is why no one is interested in getting in to the market, while many (Disney being the most obvious example) have been trying to get out, and others (THQ being the most recent) have gone bankrupt.
Was Atari wrong to go after the "hardcore" market in the late 1970s/early 1980s? No, of course not. Their mistake was losing control of a growing and profitable market, not going after the market in the first place. Similarly, Nintendo's fault wasn't tapping in to a burgeoning, highly profitable market, but instead it was letting that market get away from them. The loss of the "casual" market was not some predestined, pre-ordained phenomenon; they just got outcompeted by Apple and Facebook, which were smarter and better.
There's no guarantee if Wii Sports U, Wii Fit U or whatever casual mega hit from Wii will repeat the same level of success or even increase the system's userbase. 3DS tried to bring the Nintendogs crowd and didn't manage to reach the same level of success from it's predecessor. Nintendo Land was targeted toward casuals, as most of the Wii U release titles had casual appeal. Didn't worked so far either.
Completely and entirely agree. This doesn't tell me that tapping casuals is impossible, though; it tells me that Nintendo is facing stiff competition for this highly competitive, highly profitable market segment, and losing to smarter, more capable competitors.
So the question is: should Nintendo not try because the competition is hard? No question, it's easier and safer and more reliable to tap the "hardcore" market. We have had nearly 40 years now to learn what they want and how to pitch it to them. It is a streamlined, well understood market, but it is also much less profitable. I'm not saying there is a right answer to this question.
I think Nintendo is going to lose out on both markets now.
