mjc2021 on 06 April 2009
| Seihyouken said: Incredibly flawed argument. 1. Being cheaper doesn't give it a longer life. The GameCube was cheaper than the PS2. 2. True, but again, how does this support it having a longer life? 3. That's true. 4. This is false. As has been stated, if PS3 were to drop by $100, Microsoft would be capable of matching that. On the flipside, if PS3 only drops $50, it's unlikely that Microsoft would cut the system a full $50 to match it. They wouldn't need to. 5. This is true. |
1. The console being cheaper has lot to do with it selling better than its competitor. PS2 had a 100 million units lead over the Gamecube and because of that the PS2 got all the best 3rd party support.
2. Have you noticed the consoles that tend to die off have bad 3rd party support? Microsoft got the support because it managed to move out a lot of 360 consoles. At the rate I wouldn't be surprised if the 360 eventually becomes the 5th best selling video game console ever. Excluding handheld consoles ofcourse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles#Video_game_consoles
4. This is really just an opinion. I just assume they would do something to fire back.
