If you can back up your own theories only then can you criticize another's theory just as sloppily conjured.
That's exactly what I said to you. I didn't do a scientific study or take polls of people in retail at the time (Bodhesatva?) but I did give reasons why I thought my numbers were reasonable. You pulled a failure rate higher than the 360's straight out of your ass and threw the stinking thing at me with no explanation at all. So I am offended that you choose to lecture me on sloppy conjecture.
Why don't you believe that new management does not = new Wii?
I DO believe that. Anyway, Nintendo has not to date done a significant hardware revision of a home console. You say that this time they will. My evidence is history. You are the one who needs to produce an actual reason why they would do what you say they will.
If you can present an actual argument, not a shouting match that contains no data, reasonings, or actual counters other than saying your fake numbers are better than my fake numbers, maybe we'll get some where.
You're really being over-defensive here. I have not shouted at you. There is little data available to either of us. I have given my reasoning. My fake numbers ARE better than yours, because they have detailed, stated reasoning behind them. Again, YOU are the one with the greater burden of proof, because YOU are the one saying something new will happen. I am saying that nothing new will happen.
How many DS owners bought a DS Lite and have a DS 'normal' laying around? I can speculate 5% of the owners have double-bought while you can just as easily state 80% have, and we'd both be about as close as anyone else is: who knows?
Maybe what you're failing to grasp here is that not all guesses are created equal. 5% is a reasonable number, especially taking into account the number of people buying used DSes (that the double-buyer sold off) that they would otherwise have bought new. I think 5% might actually be low, because the DS Lite actually has different and better hardware (backlighting being the most obvious). But 80% is an incredible number that would require actual data for people to believe it, where they would take the 5% guess as reasonable without backup.
|facher83 said:||Nobody at Fred Meyer asks the consumer if they are buying a replacement, an upgrade, or if they are keeping the old product. Sony's numbers even include replacement units. Nintendo only goes on sales, not including replacement units. Everyone already knows this.|
That is interesting information which I was unaware of. That would substantially impact the numbers, but there is no way it is anywhere close to 40%. Since Sony counts numbers that Nintendo doesn't, 10% is easily believable, and 15% wouldn't be too out there.
If I have no apple for 5 years, and I am given an apple, I may or may not eat the apple. Nobody really knows if I'll touch the apple or not. No reasoning by any magnitude can suggest I won't eat the apple because I've never touched an apple in 5 years - it has no weight anywhere. Just as much as saying 5% of the first 20 million were replaced, or better yet that 100% of the first 30 million units were replaced under warranty or not. We just don't get those figures.
Your apple example makes absolutely no sense to me with regard to the subject at hand. What does it have to do with what we are discussing? And, to clarify, I figured that it was 3-5% ABOVE normal (Nintendo) failure rates. Again, 5% is a reasonable number you might disagree with; 100% is an insane number you are making up with no regard for reality. This is a major obstacle to rational discussion, ESPECIALLY when, as you say, the true figures are unavailable.
And honestly, upgrading your technology is more frequent than a glass of coffee. People upgrade cell phones, computers, cars, TVs, all the time, because they can, not because they need to. Because it's 'cool'. If you can afford to buy an upgrade once, you can afford to buy another upgrade yet again.
Yeah, the difference is that they buy something NEW. Not the same damn car but with no sunroof (no HDD bay). Most people replace cell phones and computers because the technology is advancing; they buy other stuff because the fashion is changing. How many times have you replaced your DVD player because the new models are so much cooler?
My room mate gave me my current PS2. He has another newer PS2, as well as a PS2 slim, sitting in his room still today. I refused to pay for another. But, that's 5 sales between the two of us (my first broke, bought another off a neighbor for $25, and inherited my room mate's old one). My other room mate, recently married, has one as well. That puts 3 consumers at achieving 6 console sales overall.
Now take away all the ones you got used that you wouldn't have been willing to buy new. Because they aren't sales that matter to Sony's numbers. If a PS2 goes through two dozen people like an STD, that's not 24 sales, it's one, at least to Sony. And in any case no one I know is like that with consoles. Anecdotes mean even less than the numbers we make up, unless you have dozens of anecdotes or poorly-thought-out numbers.
I really have no other facts to present for hardware realities other than my immediate household has 3 users, and overall 6 consoles - that doesn't include the source of one of them, whose original owner might just have another PS2 himself.
If this is the experience you've had, I understand how that perspective might lead you to believe that the PS2's sales numbers are grossly exaggerated. But even then, only one of the consoles actually broke. So only one console too many is being counted by Sony. Your roommate is Sony's favorite customer, because he buys from it so much. Maybe some Mario Kart fanatic is going to buy 4 Wiis if the 16-player WiFi rumor turns out to be true. I don't see the relevance. Your roommate bought 2 PS2s -- was it because the second IDENTICAL SYSTEM was somehow more fashionable? I doubt it, although I cheerfully admit to total ignorance as to the actual reason. Given that history, how can you say that he bought the third just because the slim model came out? Maybe it was just time for #3 for him.
Now I'm just making crap up, but you get my point: Anecdotes mean nothing without some kind of reason why they should matter. Are you arguing that lots of PS2 owners have bought 3 of them, giving an artificially high estimate of the userbase? That is a different argument from the one you were presenting earlier (lots of PS2s break, and the necessary replacements give an artificially high estimate of the userbase). If you are making this new argument, I would not really be able to argue with it, not having any idea what goes on in the head of the average PS2 fan, except to say that I doubt very much that your friend is representative.