The Real War is between Wii and the HD consoles

[Slimebeast]

Reasonable said:

Slimebeast said:

Reasonable said:

Slimebeast said:
I don't believe in this kind of statistical correlation analysis.

Especially not the conclusion that the Wii is stealing more from PS3 than the X360.

Causality analysis is far from this easy in other areas (like medicine which is my own field, economics is another) so I doubt it can be this simple when determining gaming population preference and buying habits.

Actually, with only 3 consoles I'd say it shouldn't be too hard.  Retail's my field, and you're calculating correlations across hundreds of products to find demand patterns and which products cannabilize which and by how much.

Personally I'd say its pretty likely, even without performing any analysis, that the Wii affects the PS3 more than the 360.  The clearest indication was the Source's own review of 100 weeks of performance - what you can see is an almost perfect correlation between the Sony marketshare loss (from PS2 to Ps3) to Nintendo gain (from Gamecube to Wii) while the 360 showed a modest upward trend perfectly in line with Xbox previous growth.

In short, Sony and Nintendo have swapped places while MS have been slowly growing their own share almost seperately.  I know there is a lot of talk about Wii bringing in new gamers/demographics, and to an extent this is true, but I actually think, particularly in US and UK, that the 360 has actually brought in more new console gamers - specifically, I believe it's usurped the PC for gamers who would previously have turned to that platform for FPS, online MP, Clans and a strong sense of community.

The Wii in many ways is the new PS2 (although I think it's failing to gain the traction PS2 did with third part) while the 360 is simply continuing a trend started by MS, who are only relatively recently making moves to expand the console to more casual purchasers.

The PS3 I believe confused consumers initially (perhaps still) with its huge leap in spec, price and the inclusion of BR, etc.  The result was it made it relatively easy for the Wii to steal the more casual market, particularly with the strong interest in Wii Sports and motion control and the more mass market price, while it started out very weak for online, etc. to effectively compete with the 360, particulary as the 360 had already been out for a year and got Halo 3 and Gears out to gather the online faithful.

My personal view is Sony were so sure that Nintendo wasn't a threat, they went full out after the 360, looking to equal or top it on specs, play catch up online with Live,  and rely on the massive Playstation brand and install base to deliver an easy victory where they quickly edged MS out of the game by replacing them as the console for FPS, online, etc. while at the same time hoovering up the mass market, relegating the Wii as a niche console for the Nintendo faithful, much as they had with the Gamecube.

Of course, things didn't quite work out like that...

 

But you're talking about a different subject now.

The OP analysis is about trends and competition within this generation, and he's drawing conclusions that IMO can't be drawn.

Your post is about comparisons between generations, and that's something else and nothing I disagree with at all, because the Wii clearly has stolen gamers from Sony - lots of PS2 owners in last gen are choosing Wii in this gen.

I think its more or less the same thing.

The Wii impacts the PS3 this generation because it is the choice for mass market it was assumed the PS3 would be.  The 360 was never such as choice, certainly not at launch, and I thinks that's what the OP is getting at.  That it wasn't really MS that hurt Sony, it was Nintendo - and to an extent Sony themselves for making the PS3 the expensive, high risk device it launched as instead of an easy to buy successor to the PS2.

I know what you mean, though.  In terms of cost and library, the PS3 has ended up more in competition with 360 than it ever should have vs the Wii.

I believe that the only way to really understand this generation is to look across current status and go back to last generation to see what has changed and why.

I feel so many 360 fans assume MS destroyed Sony, which is just silly.  Sony and Nintendo destroyed Sony this gen so far, not the 360 - something I find ironically amusing myself (even as a PS3 owner).

 

Reasonable, I don't think you understand the stat analysis method the OP is using, and how flawed the conclusions are.

It's got nothing to do with your arguments (because again: your arguments indeed are right, the problem is that the OP is trying to prove them with a flawed method)

It's not hard to demonstrate why the conclusions are flawed, believe me, so this is going to sound stupid, but I don't have the resources to do it at the moment (I can't find a good way to put it into words so that it would be easy to understand. Im a bad teacher and my English sux lol).

EDIT:
One example of a conclusion you can't draw from the stat analysis is for example (but the OP does it anyway):

"The third point, which is quite interesting, is that the least of the competitions is between PS3 and X360."