By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Updated: Global Hardware and software UP! (28th July '12) - 3DS dominates, Vita falters

ninty_shareholder64 on 05 August 2012

Isn't the PS2 selling in a totally different market than Wii?
In markets where the Wii is not available at all?
And that's because it was the best selling console gen6 and in these markets no one can affort to buy the Wii, right? So what's the whole point? In Africa, a 100$ laptop outsells the ipone4G, uhhh...
I think it's really funny, though, but after looking up some facts it's not that abnormal. The PS2 could also outsell the PS3 and XB360 in some years imo.

And no one needs to replace their Wii, because it will work forever, right?
Just my own conclusion on that.



Around the Network
DieAppleDie on 05 August 2012

^^^
true
this is what i was going to say
Ps2 sells because where it sells theres not a chance of buying any other console at a reasonable price...
Ps2 is now the console of the poor people



TheShape31 on 05 August 2012

Jeez, Sony really had no sales plan for the Vita. They just kind of made and and said, "well, here it is". They obviously learned nothing from the failures of the PS3 launch, and that's a shame.



Jay520 on 05 August 2012
Chandler said:
It's because the PS3 is not BC anymore while the Wii is and the Wii U will be, so there is no need to keep the Wii going but people need to replace their defunct PS2's if they want to keep playing their old games. So which business strategy is more commendable for the consumer? I just love it when a company screws people over and the fans go "You show em Sony, wooohooo!"


1.) Please explain to me how Sony is screwing over consumers because the PS3 isn't BC.

.2.) Your assertion that PS2's are selling because the PS3 isn't BC is flawed. The PS2 sells primarily in developing nations. Places where the PS3 isn't affordable. So even if the PS3 was BC, the PS2 sales would still be strong in poorer nations, because the PS3 has very little presence there.

oniyide on 05 August 2012
Chandler said:
oniyide said:
Chandler said:
oniyide said:
Chandler said:
It's because the PS3 is not BC anymore while the Wii is and the Wii U will be, so there is no need to keep the Wii going but people need to replace their defunct PS2's if they want to keep playing their old games. So which business strategy is more commendable for the consumer? I just love it when a company screws people over and the fans go "You show em Sony, wooohooo!"


We got a smart one here, NO one is happy about PS3 not being backward compatible, show me someone who is.

OT THey love 3ds in Japan! Cant wait to see how KH3d does in the US

Read the posts before mine, there you have the people who are happy about it because people replacing PS2's is apparently a good thing.

In no way did he indicate that he was happy that people had to replace their consoles. If he indicated anything it was that he might be happy that a older console is outselling a more recent one, now if you want to draw your own out of whack conclusion to that, be my guest

There's a correlation between the fact that the PS2 keeps selling indefinitely and the missing BC from the PS3. It's a given that the Wii will not keep selling at the pace the PS2 does due to the fact that Wii U will be able to play Wii games. And yes, people gloating over the fact that the PS2 will outsell the Wii due to  Sony screwing people over more than Nintendo does in this regard (They are both no saints) means to me that there are people who support this behavior at their own cost as long as they have some numbers to gloat about. I'm just THAT crazy. So here's my number...

Or maybe people are buying it because the PS2 in its enitre lifetime enjoyed EXCELLENT support from day 1 and long after its succesor came out. SOmehtng that you cant really say about the WIi. Your making assumptions, where are these PS2s being sold? I would bet it would be in developing nations, where they probably cant afford to get in on the game when they released originally, consoles can be expensive, I sersiouly doubt most of these sales are coming from the US, European countries, Japan etc.  "Correlation" please, your just assuming and you know what they say about assuming and again SHOW me where someone in this thread said they are happy about it the PS3 being BC and dont make things up



Around the Network
oniyide on 05 August 2012

I guess we wont be hearing from Chandler



DieAppleDie on 05 August 2012

oni
not from day one
do you remember its 1st year?
it was awful



Chandler on 05 August 2012
Jay520 said:
Chandler said:
It's because the PS3 is not BC anymore while the Wii is and the Wii U will be, so there is no need to keep the Wii going but people need to replace their defunct PS2's if they want to keep playing their old games. So which business strategy is more commendable for the consumer? I just love it when a company screws people over and the fans go "You show em Sony, wooohooo!"


1.) Please explain to me how Sony is screwing over consumers because the PS3 isn't BC.

.2.) Your assertion that PS2's are selling because the PS3 isn't BC is flawed. The PS2 sells primarily in developing nations. Places where the PS3 isn't affordable. So even if the PS3 was BC, the PS2 sales would still be strong in poorer nations, because the PS3 has very little presence there.


1.) It was an exaggeration. They may not exactly screwing people over with this, but it is no doubt less consumer friendly than other competitors handle this situation.

 

2.) I didn't say that the PS2 selling the way it does is only because of the BC isuue, but it's a factor. I myself have a defunct PS2 in my closet and a wall full of PS2 games. I know I will need to replace this PS2 WITH ANOTHER PS2. This will not be the case if my Wii breaks sometime in the future because there will be an alternative. That is all I'm saying, don't blow this out of proportion here.



Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.

Chandler on 05 August 2012
oniyide said:
Chandler said:
oniyide said:
Chandler said:
oniyide said:
Chandler said:
It's because the PS3 is not BC anymore while the Wii is and the Wii U will be, so there is no need to keep the Wii going but people need to replace their defunct PS2's if they want to keep playing their old games. So which business strategy is more commendable for the consumer? I just love it when a company screws people over and the fans go "You show em Sony, wooohooo!"


We got a smart one here, NO one is happy about PS3 not being backward compatible, show me someone who is.

OT THey love 3ds in Japan! Cant wait to see how KH3d does in the US

Read the posts before mine, there you have the people who are happy about it because people replacing PS2's is apparently a good thing.

In no way did he indicate that he was happy that people had to replace their consoles. If he indicated anything it was that he might be happy that a older console is outselling a more recent one, now if you want to draw your own out of whack conclusion to that, be my guest

There's a correlation between the fact that the PS2 keeps selling indefinitely and the missing BC from the PS3. It's a given that the Wii will not keep selling at the pace the PS2 does due to the fact that Wii U will be able to play Wii games. And yes, people gloating over the fact that the PS2 will outsell the Wii due to  Sony screwing people over more than Nintendo does in this regard (They are both no saints) means to me that there are people who support this behavior at their own cost as long as they have some numbers to gloat about. I'm just THAT crazy. So here's my number...

Or maybe people are buying it because the PS2 in its enitre lifetime enjoyed EXCELLENT support from day 1 and long after its succesor came out. SOmehtng that you cant really say about the WIi. Your making assumptions, where are these PS2s being sold? I would bet it would be in developing nations, where they probably cant afford to get in on the game when they released originally, consoles can be expensive, I sersiouly doubt most of these sales are coming from the US, European countries, Japan etc.  "Correlation" please, your just assuming and you know what they say about assuming and again SHOW me where someone in this thread said they are happy about it the PS3 being BC and dont make things up

I'm assuming just as much as you do. I just so happen to have another point of view. I never said that the PS2 selling in developing countries would not be a factor, I'm just saying that the missing BC is ANOTHER factor contributing to the steady sales of the PS2.



Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.

Jay520 on 05 August 2012
Chandler said:
Jay520 said:
Chandler said:
It's because the PS3 is not BC anymore while the Wii is and the Wii U will be, so there is no need to keep the Wii going but people need to replace their defunct PS2's if they want to keep playing their old games. So which business strategy is more commendable for the consumer? I just love it when a company screws people over and the fans go "You show em Sony, wooohooo!"


1.) Please explain to me how Sony is screwing over consumers because the PS3 isn't BC.

.2.) Your assertion that PS2's are selling because the PS3 isn't BC is flawed. The PS2 sells primarily in developing nations. Places where the PS3 isn't affordable. So even if the PS3 was BC, the PS2 sales would still be strong in poorer nations, because the PS3 has very little presence there.


1.) It was an exaggeration. They may not exactly screwing people over with this, but it is no doubt less consumer friendly than other competitors handle this situation.

 

2.) I didn't say that the PS2 selling the way it does is only because of the BC isuue, but it's a factor. I myself have a defunct PS2 in my closet and a wall full of PS2 games. I know I will need to replace this PS2 WITH ANOTHER PS2. This will not be the case if my Wii breaks sometime in the future because there will be an alternative. That is all I'm saying, don't blow this out of proportion here.



1.) Nevermind then

2.) I know you didnt say it was the only reason. But your post implied that it was a significant factor. I disagree with that because the PS2 doesn't sell significantly in regions where the PS3 is relevant. The PS3's lack of BC is actually an insignificant factor to the PS2's sales.