The_Liquid_Laser said:
Yes, I know how to recognize a straw man. It's where you make someone else have a worse argument, so that you can defeat it easily. It looks exactly like how you first replied to me: thismeinteil said: Notice how you are reasoning for me and coming to a conclusion that I definitely don't agree with. That is a textbook version of what a straw man argument looks like. |
Except your argument was exactly that. That launching early definitely helps. Your words, not mine. You said it was because it gave the earlier console time to adjust price and gain a year's worth of a gaming library. I simply pointed out how that is wrong. You can call that a strawman all day if you want, but that is just refuting your actual point. The Dreamcast ultimately destroys your conclusion. It launched over a year before the PS2. It launched for $100 less than the PS2 and they even dropped the price by $50 in time for the PS2 launch. And it had a decent library already out and announced to come. It still failed. Even against consoles that launched 2 years after it launched, when it was $99.
You also said power was a factor that does not help and waiting to launch is always a bad move. Again, your words, not mine. I won't repeat my argument about that, again, but I also explained why that won't matter for core gamers.
DarthMetalliCube said:
I think console power is very much overstated. If the Wii didn't already make that abundantly clear I'm not sure what would. Xbox was more powerful than PS2 (as was GameCube) yet both were trounced by PS2. B/c PS2 had an insane library of games. Ultimately the library is what matters most. People only use the hardware to play the games. Not saying power hurts but you could easily have the weakest machine out of all the contenders and still run away in the sales race b/c people care about the games first and foremost. PS4 also has more sales than the Switch currently b/c it was on the market for several years longer than Switch... |
Ah, but the Wii was also the weakest leader we have ever had. Not talking in terms of power there, but in terms of dominating the competition. The PS3 was less than 15M away from it, and I believe 360 was 16M away from it. The Wii is kind of like the Switch, really. Core gamers wanted an actual upgrade in the power of their console, so bought either a 360 or PS3. They may have bought the Wii as a secondary console, but they still wanted power for devs to create larger, more detailed games.
PS2, while technically less powerful than those other two, was still in the same ballpark as them. If it had been just a PS 1.2, and focused on the Eye Toy as big part of it, you can bet that the Gamecube and the Xbox would have done much better.
So, when people say power isn't important, that's only slightly true. Small differences in power, like 10%-20%, doesn't really matter. When we are talking almost a gen of difference, or more, it definitely matters.
RolStoppable said:
You neither know what a straw man is nor when something is driven by bias. If you are so convinced that the arguments for failure of Switch had logic to them, then you should explain why that was the case instead of deflecting over and over again. Regarding the first two Xbox 360 SKUs, here's an article to read: The idea that the cheaper SKU was selling better is laughable because it was so gimped. I have to correct myself on one thing, that is that the original entry model of the 360 was called Core, not Arcade like I mistakingly said. The Arcade SKU replaced Core in October 2007 while retaining the $279 price. Price cuts were kept track of on this website: Both Sony and Microsoft made a lot of SKU changes in 2007, here's what each company had on offer by November 2007, one year after the PS3's launch: Xbox 360 - $279 Arcade, $349 20GB, $449 120GB. So the $200 difference that you said held true for three years isn't anywhere close to true. The difference between the most bought models at that point (20GB 360 and 40GB PS3) was only $50 one year after the PS3's launch. The $200 difference between the PS3 and 360 held only true for eight months; naturally, I am not using the $499 20GB SKU of the PS3 for comparison because the $599 60GB SKU was the better selling one during the first eight months. |
If you weren't so blinded by bias, you would have seen in my previous posts when I actually explained why those predictions were grounded in logic. I won't repeat it, again, as that would just be a waste of my time.
Still waiting for your research and data on what each model of the 360 sold.
Funny you claim that I don't know what a strawman is, and then go on to try and use one in your argument (the bolded.) I already corrected myself a few posts ago, yet you tried to reduce my argument back to what I originally stated. The things that make you go hmmm.