The_Liquid_Laser said:
thismeintiel said:
Do you? I'm sure you aware of the definition, but do you actually know how to recognize it?
There is nothing I touched upon that wasn't a direct response to what you have written. You argued it was more important to launch early. I gave you a few examples that disproved that. You gave a whole spiel about how power doesn't really help, and I gave a counterargument as to why that isn't true. Being much more powerful than the Switch is exactly why someone is going to pick the PS5 over it, the Switch's price and library be damned. Like I said, it's the same reason the PS4 still sold so well against it.
The jump in power, while still bringing it out at a reasonable price, is exactly why Sony and MS are waiting. In the end, that will help them, not hurt them. And if you hadn't noticed, the PS4 was the more powerful console this gen, yet it won. Power never hurts. The problem in the past is that the most powerful console always just happened to be the most expensive one, by far. This gen, that changed. And even if Sony has the more powerful console next gen (it probably won't be by much), it will be the same price as the Scarlett, so power won't hurt.
|
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:
"The Saturn launched months before the PS1. The Dreamcast launched over a year before the PS2. There's much more to it than launching early. By your reasoning, those two should have been successes."
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:
thismeintiel said:
Do you? I'm sure you aware of the definition, but do you actually know how to recognize it?
There is nothing I touched upon that wasn't a direct response to what you have written. You argued it was more important to launch early. I gave you a few examples that disproved that. You gave a whole spiel about how power doesn't really help, and I gave a counterargument as to why that isn't true. Being much more powerful than the Switch is exactly why someone is going to pick the PS5 over it, the Switch's price and library be damned. Like I said, it's the same reason the PS4 still sold so well against it.
The jump in power, while still bringing it out at a reasonable price, is exactly why Sony and MS are waiting. In the end, that will help them, not hurt them. And if you hadn't noticed, the PS4 was the more powerful console this gen, yet it won. Power never hurts. The problem in the past is that the most powerful console always just happened to be the most expensive one, by far. This gen, that changed. And even if Sony has the more powerful console next gen (it probably won't be by much), it will be the same price as the Scarlett, so power won't hurt.
|
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:
thismeintiel said:
Flawed to only those blinded by bias. You can choose to ignore that the HH market shrank incredibly going from DS/PSP to 3DS/Vita, but it doesn't change it from being a fact. Numbers don't lie.
Still going to need that research and data from you.
Lol, don't get so offended. Didn't say it was all down to luck. In fact, I posted why it succeeded. And pointing to that thread is pointless. You can say why you disagree with how things will turn out, but to actually say that their arguments lacked any logic reeks of bias.
|
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:
https://www.cnet.com/reviews/microsoft-360-xbox-core-system-preview/
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:
https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Price_cuts
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.
PS3 - $399 40GB, $499 80GB.
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.
