thismeintiel said:
Lol, it's always hilarious to see people try and use the DVD excuse over and over. The fact is, as I proved in a thread of mine, the DVD had little to absolutely nothing to do with the success of the PS2. DVD players were available for much cheaper than the $299 the PS2 launched for in 2000. If I remember correctly from that thread, you could get one for $99-$149 that year, and the following year you could get one for $49-$69. The reality was that the PS2 helped DVD sales, not the other way around. DVD sales went up AFTER the PS2 launched in pretty much every region. They weren't doing great and then the PS2 launched and people were like, "Hey, these DVDs are great, let's get a PS2 that can play them and game." It was gamers buying the PS2 saying, "Hey, the PS2 can also play DVDs, I guess we should pick up a couple to test them out." |
Sure PS2 having DVD may have had some impact for people that wanted a console and had a DVD as bonus or for fathers that could gift their children with a console and avoid buying a DVD for himself... but considering the total sales of DVD players WW, the sale of the games and etc it makes 0 sense to attribute the sales of PS2 to it...
But in VGC is always like this... when Sony have success it is either because they were lucky, there were outside advantages or the adversaries made blunders, Sony can never have any merit on their success, just on their shortcomings... because PS3 selling almost 90M is a flop while other consoles reaching 50M are fantastic.
ThisGuyFooks said:
Just like the PS3 helped the Blu-Ray sales. We should remember that there was a format war between the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, which Blu-Ray won of course. If it wasn't for the PS3, maybe we would have a different format standard nowadays. |
Yep, they use DVD to say PS2 sold well, but then use BD high price to make PS3 fail... but certainly PS3 could have had a different sales curve if they were able to launch for 399 without BD and Cell... still I'm happy with what my PS3 was and the sales were good.
NintendoPie said:
So the Switch couldn't possibly sell 24+ million in a year just because you are against it, or do you have a real reason? If not, you need to set down your blinders because they are obscuring your reality. |
And Switch will hit over 24+M because you want?
Miyamotoo said:
What you wrote dont make sense because this is peak PS4 year until now (its selling best this year in 4. years) and 1st year are very rarely peak years for any console, especially with fact that most of this year Switch had stock problems and still have them in Japan.
Well Nintendo predicted they will ship 17m Switch consoles in first 13 months, and that's with huge stock problem in most part of this year, so over 20m is definatly realistick posibilite for future years. |
So no more 30M shipped in 2018?
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."