| Smashchu2 said: ...
|
Miscommunication goes on. I feel pressed to answer at least a few of those.
First, you were the one saying that the PS3 is in a death spiral because developers will abandon it. I gave the numbers about the ratios between software sales of PS3 vs 360 to show that the PS3 sells enough software (mostly in relative terms, sometimes even absolute) compared to the 360 to always justify multiplatform development. And that ratio is not going down, it's actually going up because the sales ratio as a trend is more favourable than the install base ratio. It's simple maths, really: it is not important if the 360 outsells the PS3 every week, as long as it outsells percentually less than the current install base percentual difference then the ratio will keep moving in favour of the PS3. And while you say that percentages mean nothing, the growing of this ratio brings a growing ratio in software sales between the two HD platforms, and thus makes even more ridiculous the "developers will stop developing on the PS3 because it's third" argument that floats around.
Not once I said that the PS3 is generally doing better than the 360. Only that is doing good enough comparatively that it is not going to lose support in the short term with these numbers. This is the fourth time that I repeat the same concept, and probably the fourth time that you misquote me.
And you did not understand "overall software sales per week of ownership show PS3>360 (slightly)" which is true according to the numbers on this website. It's a more significative variation of the tie ratio and gives better indication on how much sales you can expect from a given install base, here is the relevant thread.
As for disruption, I know the concept, but you're applying it wrong because there's no such thing as a single market for videogames. Nintendo did not disrupt the core market at all, they did not bring any huge new added value to it with the Wii. Traditional gamers and developers did not flock abandoning the PS and Xbox machines. That's actually the whole point of the blue ocean strategy in this case: market segmentation.
They sold approximately the same quantity of Super Mario, Metroid and Zelda games as always to their core market and they made alot of money on a market on which they actually don't have competition from the other two consoles. Meanwhile the two HD consoles are happily selling on their core market with pretty similar results to the late PS2.
At Nintendo they actually don't have any interest into "going for the kill". Didn't you say yourself that it's about the profit? Why should they hope to turn the whole industry around? Are they zaelots that want to convert to a phylosophy all the developer and gamers? Or are they businessmen that are making money, and the later others enter their own space, the better.
One last misunderstanding on your part: I didn't say that your arguments were devoid of value. I said that this conversation was valueless as a debate. I stand by this.
