The Video Game Critic

[QUOTE=Funkmaster V]Gee whiz guys, a man incorrectly said a system has never lost its market place lead. I cited two examples off the top of my head where that happened... then people said that the truths I spewed forth were not comparable and then someone else agrees with my original FACT and then peoples jump his crap.

I like the Wii alot, but why are people so passionate for Nintendo... to basically shun facts and jump people's mess? I just bought my friend's Wii because he hated it. The Wii is losing some steam, ya'll. The Xbox is a joke in Japan. Will Sony survive this generation? Yes, for a number a reasons.

Funkmaster V

[/QUOTE]

First, I really don't see people "jumping people's mess" in this regard. In fact, I see the opposite on these boards. Plenty of angry posts defending the PS3 with the same tired arguments.

Second, your losing steam assertion is incorrect based on evidence. The evidence being actual sales. It continues to sell out. Unfortunately, your anecdotal evidence of a friend not liking it hardly constitutes anything "running out of steam."

I do understand that you might mean "running out of steam" in some other, perhaps more philisophical sense. But I judge "steam" on sales, because that's the only real measurable element.

-Rob

Wow, this thread got way more passonite than I thought! "For the love of a system...!"

Speaking of which, I want to point out I LOVE my Sony PsX and PS2. I really, really WANTED the PS3 to be a top selling system and am dissapointed it is not.

I DO recall the PS2 launching with mediocore titles like FANTAVISION. But because PSone was #1 AND PS2 was not ridiculously expensive, PS2 still sold. PS fans knew the hits would come, and they did. But will it matter this time? Before, Xbox was not yet a major contendor and the CUBE was for rabid Mario lovers. Yet both the Wii and 360 have MAJOR fan bases. I just can't imagine who would want a PS3 right now.

Sorry bluemonkey, I misinterpreted your post to be a comparison, rather than what it really was: you stating the facts. I sincerely apologize.

Anywho, yes Sony will survive, but they will not lead as well as they did this gen. No matter how great the games on the system are you just can't argue with the fact that a large part of the demographic that plays video games also eats cup of noodles for a week to save a little cash. $600 is too much money.

[QUOTE=chrisbid]the dreamcast had a strong launch, but was never in first place. its more proof that you can only really go down in market position launch[/QUOTE]

My point remains the same.  The Dreamcast was a next-gen system when it was released.  It was not comparable to the N64, or PS1.  Sega's system for that was the Saturn.

The Dreamcast failed shortly after the PS2 was released, and it wasn't due to sales of the Dreamcast as much as it was that Sega had been hovering close to bankrupcy well before the Dreamcast was launched.  The Dreamcast didn't save them from that, but that's not the measure of success I've been seeing adopted on this board.  After all, the XBOX and 360 haven't made any money for Microsoft, and yet they are considered to have beat the others on sales (with the latter, at least so far).  If Sega had the money that Microsoft or Sony did in 2000, the Dreamcast would have survived, and we'd be seeing Sega's next-gen console sometime about now.

So I just don't see how this compares.  The Dreamcast *had* to be no. 1 when it was released because it was the only next-gen system available at that time, just as the 360 was no. 1 in terms of next-gen sales for its first year.  I mean if we're wanting to take the other approach and cross-compare generations, then no. 1 is still the PS2.  But that's not so much what we are doing.  Next-gen systems are effectively a different submarket due to their price and change in functionality, and so we can never really call any of them no. 1 in sales when we cross-compare between generations, because the last gen always sells better at the beginning of their cycle.  That's why the questions are usually framed within a single generation.

[QUOTE=m0zart]

[QUOTE=chrisbid]the dreamcast had a strong launch, but was never in first place. its more proof that you can only really go down in market position launch[/QUOTE]

My point remains the same.  The Dreamcast was a next-gen system when it was released.  It was not comparable to the N64, or PS1.  Sega's system for that was the Saturn.

The Dreamcast failed shortly after the PS2 was released, and it wasn't due to sales of the Dreamcast as much as it was that Sega had been hovering close to bankrupcy well before the Dreamcast was launched.  The Dreamcast didn't save them from that, but that's not the measure of success I've been seeing adopted on this board.  After all, the XBOX and 360 haven't made any money for Microsoft, and yet they are considered to have beat the others on sales (with the latter, at least so far).  If Sega had the money that Microsoft or Sony did in 2000, the Dreamcast would have survived, and we'd be seeing Sega's next-gen console sometime about now.

So I just don't see how this compares.  The Dreamcast *had* to be no. 1 when it was released because it was the only next-gen system available at that time, just as the 360 was no. 1 in terms of next-gen sales for its first year.  I mean if we're wanting to take the other approach and cross-compare generations, then no. 1 is still the PS2.  But that's not so much what we are doing.  Next-gen systems are effectively a different submarket due to their price and change in functionality, and so we can never really call any of them no. 1 in sales when we cross-compare between generations, because the last gen always sells better at the beginning of their cycle.  That's why the questions are usually framed within a single generation.[/QUOTE]

well, who is number one now, to you mozart? PS2 or XBOX 360?

FUNK

[QUOTE=Funkmaster V]well, who is number one now, to you mozart? PS2 or XBOX 360?[/QUOTE]

I don't judge them in the same class.  But if you are talking about sales and games, i.e. something objective, it would HAVE to be the PS2.

As for preference, that's kind of irrelevant to what wins in the overall market.

But my point is that XBOX 360 is definitely ahead when you consider ONLY this generation.  They had a head start.  They put a lot of thought and work into their console and its interface.  They aren't making money on it, but they will do so eventually.  Dreamcast was a hoped "savior" for Sega.  XBOX 360 is being kept alive financially by life support from Microsoft.  So the two situations are just very different.  Dreamcast was so popular, just as XBOX 360 is now, and I just don't see that it would have went away if Sega had had the financial backup that Microsoft or Sony (or even Nintendo) has.