Mazty said:
If you don't think the figures mean anything, fair enough, but don't so absurd and acuse me of cherry picking defintions when I'm just quoting a website article. |
newwil7l said:
We also have to keep in mind that the economy is in a really bad shape compared to 2006. Also you can't forget that the Wii U has gone the longest without getting any new games ever. |
All very good points, although none paint the Wii U in a postitive light in that respect.
NintendoPie said:
What a horrible comparison. Whatever, it's hopeless to try and explain this to you since you just won't listen. (Btw, Handhelds are consoles. This is why we call them Handheld Consoles.) |
Why did you ignore the word in front of the word you underlined? Obviously the word in front is the descriptive word that specifies what we are talking about. There is obvious distinction between words that have the same name.
| Mazty said:
|
Again, you are making very outlandish statements. Maybe you should just stop this.
| Mazty said:
If you don't think the figures mean anything, fair enough, but don't so absurd and acuse me of cherry picking defintions when I'm just quoting a website article. |
| Mazty said:
|
^ This was not in the original article. The Wii U's launch was not, in fact, worse than the PS3's. This is where you are cherry-picking definitions; nowhere does the article say anything positive about the PS3's launch, nor that it was "better" than the Wii U's. Know why? Because it wasn't, and if it was, this chart wouldn't prove that any more than it proves that the PS3 and 360 both had better launches than the original Wii.
Noting the PS3's launch price doesn't help your case. That is different from sales -- it factors more into revenue and profit. And if you want to go there, even at $600 the PS3 was losing Sony money with every sale, so its higher price does nothing to make it "more successful" from Sony's perspective.
You also drag the vastly different modern market into the issue when handhelds are brought up. I suppose you don't think smartphones and tablets can damage home console sales, as well?
| Max King of the Wild said:
|
Why did you assume that I ignored the "Handheld" part of that? It's quite obvious that Handheld Consoles and Home Consoles have differences, this is why the word in front of "Console" is descriptive. Does this mean that we can't compare the two? Absolutelty not. And anyone who says that these two things are completely different is completely wrong.
NintendoPie said:
Again, you are making very outlandish statements. Maybe you should just stop this. |
Attacking an argument without justifying your point is completely pointless. If you are going to say my comments are outlandish, give your argument some substance otherwise your comment is not worthwhile.
NintendoPie said:
Why did you assume that I ignored the "Handheld" part of that? It's quite obvious that Handheld Consoles and Home Consoles have differences, this is why the word in front of "Console" is descriptive. Does this mean that we can't compare the two? Absolutelty not. And anyone who says that these two things are completely different is completely wrong. |
Sure we can compare the two because they are similar... but the similarities are very limited. Like, the both play games.... and... well, that's really all I can think of. I'd have to go back and read what's being said to see if I agree with comparing the two.
| Max King of the Wild said:
|
They offer the same service: they play games.
The reason people think the mobile market is cutting into handheld sales is because smartphones and tablets provide that same service, most people have smartphones for other reasons, and the games sold through them are much less expensive.
The key is that home consoles face this same threat to their sales. Someone who uses their smartphone or tablet to play games now will be less inclined to purchase a dedicated game console with which to play other games. This is something shared by home consoles and handheld consoles. They are in the same boat.
the_dengle said:
^ This was not in the original article. The Wii U's launch was not, in fact, worse than the PS3's. This is where you are cherry-picking definitions; nowhere does the article say anything positive about the PS3's launch, nor that it was "better" than the Wii U's. Know why? Because it wasn't, and if it was, this chart wouldn't prove that any more than it proves that the PS3 and 360 both had better launches than the original Wii. Noting the PS3's launch price doesn't help your case. That is different from sales -- it factors more into revenue and profit. And if you want to go there, even at $600 the PS3 was losing Sony money with every sale, so its higher price does nothing to make it "more successful" from Sony's perspective. You also drag the vastly different modern market into the issue when handhelds are brought up. I suppose you don't think smartphones and tablets can damage home console sales, as well? |
Two things:
1) Are total sales the only way of defining how successful a launch is?
2) Sales are affected by launch price. Saying it only factors into revenue and profit is not true.
I didn't drag handhelds into this debate. As I said if you think the figures don't count for anything than that is your opinion & time will tell.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
