They will probably do great if they are willing to change their strategy (like Nintendo had to do). Whether they will actually make those changes is yet to be seen.
Nintendo realized how badly they were doing last generation, so they changed their ways and went back a bit more to their NES ways. After all, the NES was not really appreciated by the established gaming market back then, but it made a killing by changing the playing field.
They made games for people who had been left behind (as the industry basically moved to 3D only, or games with tons of cutscenes, or tons of buttons on controllers, or whatever else they focused on) or who haven't played much before, instead of focusing on horsepower and graphics in the struggle for the expensive and ever shrinking high-end market (though they have a few games for the latter groups, too). It's disruption at work.
You can read about disruption in The Innovator's Dilemma if you want to, it's quite interesting (and it even has a section on the computer and hard drive industries).
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Innovators-D...5590423&sr=8-3
Wikipedia has something on it, too, it seems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
Of course, one must never underestimate the selling power of 2D Mario games (especially when considering how extremely rare that kind of game is today).
Generalisations aside, you are right about their market being way larger than the hardcore market. I hope you are not dismissing it entirely based on people you know not playing it anymore, as they still seem to have droves of active players.
Bookmarks