chakkra said:
My argument was that Nintendo is one of the most respected brand in gaming history and yet it has had a couple of consoles that have performed worst than the X1. So that´s why I dont see the X1 like such a big failure. |
Isn't the only thing you're proving here is that brand doesn't really matter if the product is bad or inferior when compared to competition?
We can see with Wii U (& even Virtual Boy I guess) that if you bork the hardware design then you're toast, regardless of the logo on the packaging.
The N64 (my favourite console of all time btw) wasn't borked exactly but their choice of cartridges over CD caused more problems than it solved, which ultimately seeded 3rd party software advantage to Sony. I'm simplifying a little, but you get the point - the brand seems to have a lot less impact on hardware sales than you're implying - your own examples serve as proof of that.
EDIT : it's also worth mentioning that Microsoft is itself is a massive brand (dare I say bigger than Nintendo) - just because it wasn't in the gaming space for a time doesn't mean that it doesn't have some pull. If Apple starts releasing TVs, it's going to have a significantly better chance in the sector than a new brand that nobody has heard of.
So your argument falls down on both sides... Figures show that brand doesn't move much hardware if the product is weak. Figures show that a known brand entering a new market doesn't necessarily hinder sales (look at PS1).
Last edited by Biggerboat1 - on 20 February 2019
