ctalkeb said:
Kasz216 said:
Not really. Your definition of "phenomenon" is largely nonexitant from what i can tell of you definition of it.
Hype largely doesn't sell stuff to people who don't want it. Hype sells stuff to people who do want it. Stuff gets hyped because it's something the general audience would want.
The Wii got hyped because the Wii was something more then one small niche of the population wanted. Had you taken... say the PS3 and given it Wii hype... it wouldn't of moved that many more consoles then it already has. The hype train would of started... the general population would of given the PS3 a look... and would of said "Who cares. I don't want that."
All hype does is get peoples attention looking somewhere they wouldn't normally look. After that it's the products own merits that depend on whether it's successful or not.
All phenomenon's are hits.
|
But all hits aren't phenomenons. Please go back and read what I've written, I think I have defined what I mean by "phenomenon" pretty well.
You've earlier seemed to claim that if something has a certain level of quality, it will get hype. Was I mistaken? Have you gone away from that point of view? Do i misunderstand you this time?
I know why the Wii recieved hype. I also understand that it wouldn't have worked with the PS360. Try to understand what I mean by the difference between "phenomenons" and "hits". It'll make this discussion more interesting for the both of us.
(BTW: I still think a polished turd can be marketed to hit levels, but it's not so interesting for the discussion)
|
If something has a certain level of quality it will get hype. Mainstream quality. It needs to be both mainstream and of high quality.
