I don't recall a PC version of Super Mario Bros.
*Honestly I was only speaking about PC games... I've never owned a console, so it's a bit out of my depth.
As for the bit about young players joining in... how is that not one and the same, more often than not? If it were the other way around, we'd all be craving a break from the gaming monotony and desperate for decent a hack-n-slash, or an old time Shooter with keys.
My point being, an average video gamer didn't change much since then, neither did his taste. There was always a certain number of people who like complex games and the majority that can't stand them. We have constant influx of young players and those add to the auditory that also consists of mostly people starting out young, but overall preference towards complex games remains roughly the same.
And yeah, PC isn't the kind of platform it used to be, yet for video game makers (and publishers) I don't think that specific platform mattered all that much anyway. It certainly doesn't now.
Gizmo wrote:Publishers only give a damn about what will sell. If the market [industry wide], suddenly demanded Turn Based math dueling games with virtual card collecting and the ability to change the equasion by playing an operator card....... We'd be swamped with them on every shelf. A lot of publishers don't even play games, or have any preference... There is no SSI, known for military strategy games anymore, or Black Isle known for various RPGs; I can barely think of three current companies that pride themselves on a preference. I cannot believe 'they don't want to' for any reason other than their perception that those titles don't target the greater bulk.
Well, "targeting the greater bulk" isn't exactly equivalent to properly serving all the niches of the market. In fact, under that approach, even if there was a considerable demand for math dueling games, big enough to make them fairly profitable, they would still not be made simply because they don't target the greater bulk, only the lesser one. That entire doctrine of going for as many players as possible looks more or less like "brute-forcing" the market. It's not at all that efficient. In fact it's the least efficient method by definition. But it requires least amount of actual (managerial) work and it seems
to be working, or at least it used to. But as a long term strategy it's garbage.
Also you probably give too much credit to Publishers for their ability to recognize demand and make all the right decisions. Living in the world where EA just threw away hundreds of millions dollars on epic failure of SWTOR along with countless other companies investing literally billions in MMOs that probably won't make any money, with social gaming that many industry commentators used to regard as be all end all replacement for games of all varieties tanking so badly, I wouldn't be so sure.
As for the companies from the past, I don't know about SSI, but Black Isle went down with Interplay and it didn't seem that overall marketability of their products was the main reason for that, much rather catastrophic managerial decisions. Troika seemed to be chronically mismanaged as well, I believe Tim Cain acknowledged that himself. They were people very dedicated to game design but not so much to business side of things.
But there's also, say, Paradox Interactive. They carved a nice niche in PC strategy games and doing pretty well for themselves the last time I checked. It also seems they're doing even better since digital distribution kicked in.