WereKitten said:
|
Frankly I don't care about the remarks about my grammar, I'm always ready to learn. I'm more worried about the fact that you seem not willing to conduct this conversation in an ordered manner without changing subject all the time or ignoring the points that have been previously made.
I have answered your question. Heck, I answered the same question two or three times already. Part of it is misunderstading the industry on your part. I did get off track with the last post though.
As for grammar, just remember that companies are singluar.
I started writing a point by point reply, but then I realized how useless it was. A debate is only useful if both parties take the time to read and try to understand what the other is saying, and either disprove it or take account of it in following through. You have demonstrated multiple times that this isn't the case here.
Add to that the way you keep contradicting yourself and ignoring factual reality (neither MS nor Sony "has strong software teams"? "Very few hits in their repertoire"? ), and the way you prefer to live in your imaginary world (Nintendo "moving in for a kill", "Gamers may also stay with Nintendo as they have all the content they want") and this exchange really is devoid of value.
This is a good example of the pot calling the keddle black. You misread a lot of my stuff. Even if I answer questions, you'll claim I didn't because I didn't give your responce. Actuallty, you only asked two questions. I skipped the second becuase there was no reasonable responce and the first one you somehow claimed I never answered even though I did three times.
90% of the time, you drew some conclusion based against what I said. It's not me moving around, it's you. But rather then play the blame game, I will give you an over laying responce except to the software sales making the PS3 profitable. I answered that three times. If you don't understand by now, I can't help you.
First, the 360 is simply doing better. Somehow, you have made up reasons it is not. Like I have said, there is no way to prove the claim. The games are selling better on Microsoft's system. You say "Oh OH, it is overtracking the 360" but I will point to week by week sales that put 360 above the PS3, meaning it is selling more units. You'll say "OH OH, GTA did better on the PS3 when the facts are considered" but I will reply that the fact it sold better on the 360 shows how the old market is responding to the two systems, and they see the 360 as a favorable system as they would rather have the software on that system. The precents don't matter. The Marketshares even less. the profit does. Sony is lacking those profits. They are doing bad, and worse compaired to the 360.
To your question:So where exactly is the trouble with the developers?
I'm not sure how it is relevent, but as a general answer..... exclusives can no longer be done the the HD twins due to a shrinking market and rising development cost. They have to make ports (on of their contempt with the Wii it is hard to port). Exclusives come namely when a deal of some kind is struck. Third parties might be in trouble with this system. There is more, but I'm not sure how to explain it. Basically, the power of the systems and the shrinking market (which Iwata has proven long ago) are making it hard for third parties.
Now, the bold. Sony and Microsoft being up to par is not fact. it's an opinion from your standpoint. I'm looking at sales. The hardcore love Sony's game, but they don't match up in sales to other developers. Sony has Gran Turismo. Microsoft has Halo. Nintendo has a lot more then that. The problem with your claim is you assume that Sony and Microsoft have teams as good as Nintendo (that's laughable) and ran with it. If the assumption is false, then your argument has no backing and can not be taken seriously. In this case, it makes no sence. But if you think I'm joking, look here. Sony has three big franchises. FF7 was developed by Square and Crash Bandicoot by Naghty Dog. Both of these guys are outside Sony (Naughty Dog might not be). Compaired to the fact that Nintendo dominates the chart. The top 12 games are Nintendo games. Only two of the top 20 are not Nintendo. Keep going and you'll only see Sony for gran Turismo and Crash (who has long since been dead). Microsoft has Halo. Thus, your claim is false.
Secondly, you are wrong on Nintendo becuase you decided to make a responce before finding out what disruption was (I gave you all the information to find it). Yes, disruption is about gobbling up market, meaning Nintendo is going after Sonmy and Microsoft. Reggie, at this E3, meantioned attacking and taking over the game industry. Nintendo's goal is to "Go in for the kill." Sony and Microsoft are both trying to make motion contols, so they are doing just what I said. Yes, disruption measn the disruptor (Nintendo) is trying to make the incombant (Sony and Microsoft) gone.
My arguments are not devoid of value. Yours are. You made a lot of claims in both that were either not backed up (Micorosoft and Sony's developers are on par with Nintendo or other big publishers) or false (And overall software sales per week of ownership show PS3>360 (slightly). I can answer everthing you said, but you will either claim I didn't answer it, or make a point based on false assumptions or no evidence at all. Becuase of this, your claims are flat out wrong and it doesn't take much work to find that out. You have to have something more tangable.
