A true measure of Microsoft Xbox 360 success

[heruamon]

Akvod said:

RolStoppable said:

Akvod said:

RolStoppable said:

I think it's way better to discuss financials than which features and games are better. Financials are facts while features and games have no way to really objectively measure them.

Also, if you don't like this sort of discussion, simply avoid the sales forum. Nobody is forcing you to talk about business.

Financial numbers are facts, just like how much an apple is closer to "Red" is a fact, or how symmetrical one's face is, or how many polygons a car in one game has versus another. There are many facts.

However, if I'm arguing that chocolate is better than vanilla, I don't talk about how much chocolatte ice cream sold in comparisson to vanilla. I don't bring up the nutritional facts and calloric intake of vanilla versus chocollate. There are a shit load of facts out there, but they're irrelevant to subjective things, because there's no objective criteria or measurment of quality.

It's not that I'm against talking about sales facts and numbers, but I'm against USING those numbers to justify a subjective opinion.

We aren't using these financial stats to determine which console is better. The people in this thread generally agree that the true measure of success for any console should be achieving a net profit, because that's the main reason why Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are making video game systems in the first place. So the metric of success is clearly defined and numbers from financial reports are used to see whether or not a console meets those requirements.

In other words, this isn't about subjective opinions, it's about objective standards.

See, again, the word success dosen't equate to being succesful financially. From the top of my head, success simply means to "excell at something".

That something could be succeeding in the number of games, features, image, profit, etc.

There's nothing before or after "success" in the title.

 

As for your assertment that we equate a console's success to a company's success, I say no. There's a sentiment that Modern Warfare 2 didn't succeed, because it didn't measure up to their own standards and criteria (whether it be having dedicated servers, graphics, etc), instead of pure sales and Activision's finanicial success. There was a huge bashing of the Wii, by the HD fanboys who accused that the Wii is for "casuals" and that games like Wii fitness aren't successful.

IDK about what the people in this thread think, but all I'm arguing for, as an "outsider", is that to drop the vagueness. Say "financially succesful", because I don't think that the 360 is succesful, because it doesn't meet my own subjective standards and criteria. You guys failed to define the "metric of success", right from the very title.

If the thread was about objective standards, we would be discussing what the standards should be... did you mean that the thread was about objective facts?

Damn, it's 4AM...

Well..it's only 6:53pm my time...so see, even time is relative, unless you set a standard, or a set of standards.  Point being...what are we using to gauge success?  AAA ratings?  $$$$? Comaprative analysis to past performance?  Divserity and Scope of content?  There are alot of things to consider, but I'll let you go to sleep...