View Post
Bitmap Frogs said:
coonana said:
No it was not directly competing with the PS2 esp when it had to do with  software sales. Im not saying there was zero competition but these products were fairly seperated for many reasons. Comparing anually released products to game consoles is another terrible example for you. Strike 2 for you. See that company(Sony) that had all those advantages never transfered all those merits to the next generation. The average consumer for the 360 is the casualcore. That type of consumer is not going to decide bewteen the PS2 and the 360 esp when it comes to games. 360 had the advantage of universally being known as more pwoerful and more functional than the other products of the time. PS2 audience was huge but it was also transferring over to the 360 audience. Not only that all those developers that went to Sony were now going to MS, remember the 50 million dollars exclusive GTA DLC for 360, remember how new finaly Fantasy is not a complete Sony exclusive anymore??? Or how about the huge marketing plans and guaranteed success of Gears of War. Not really the signs of an underdog.  



How come they weren't? Any reason why they were not? Of course they were competing. And still are, as the ps2 is still available.

By the way, carmakers don't release products annually. Usually a single model is sold several years - you know, they are expensive to develop. They may occasionally rebadge them to make them look fresh tho. It's spec

Wah? now you are talking demographics and targets? back it with demographic data or bust.

The Final Fantasy decision was taken 2-3 years into the product cycle? it's got nothing to do with being the underdog, it's about how the market evolved.

What? So if a company splurges on marketing it isn't an underdog? Then NONE of the console makers were underdogs.

Microsoft stepped in with the 360 after a total financial disaster (the original xbox) that failed to capture a significant amount of marketshare and went on sale against the biggest seller: the playstation 2. That's an underdog. That's why everyone assumed Sony would win. That's why games like Final Fantasy, Assassins Creed and others started as ps3 exclusives.



 If you say they are STILL competing then I guess used Xbox and GC hardware is competing with current gen hardware...

They were competing in the beginning of this gen but it was completely different than say the PS2 vs Xbox 1. It was clear to consumers that the 360 was the new "thing." Theres a reason the big three race to release their console first.


Ford F150 2007, 2008, 2009....


I am not going to give proof. AM I wrong to say that most of the 360 demographics consist of hardcore and casualcore?


No they were talking about FF for a while same with making the GTA exclusive DLC, and Sony losing GTA time exclusive. Things like this are not the sign of an underdog but an aggresive predator. If a company is big on marketing (MS definitely adverties way more than Nintendo and probabaly more than Sony esp in the beginning of this gen) its a big sign they are not an underdog.

The Xbox was an underdog. I already said that. It doesnt mean the Xbox 360 was an underdog though. If the 360 came into this gen with no advertising and Sony still had its grip on most of third parties, you probably would be right. Thats just not what happened though. Its hard marking the most successful computer company's product as an underdog. There were people who thought that Sony was going to win again but there were many who already knew that was BS. 360 was released before its real competition and it was a powerhouse of marketing, third party support, and some big time first paty support. MS worked hard to achieve this success but it was not the "little guy."