Is the Wii really competing with PS3 and Xbox 360?

[omgwtfbbq]

steverhcp02 said:

omgwtfbbq said:
well, if the Wii did not exist I would eventually buy a 360 or a PS3. Therefore, Nintendo took my money that would have otherwise gone to Sony or Microsoft. Therefore, they are competing, for my dollars as well as everybody elses. I don't get this whole "they are different, so they aren't competing" mantra that everybody is spewing. Do PSP's compete with iPods? Well, someone who owns a PSP might decide not to buy an iPod since the PSP serves their needs. Does the PSP compete with the DS? of course! They compete for the handheld gaming dollar even though the PSP is also a movie and music player. Would the PS3 and 360 sell more if the Wii did not exist? YES (at least one more). As such, they are competing for consumer interest, as well as developer interest. The markets may be different, the demographics may be different, but anyone who thinks they aren't competing against each other is either deluded or have an ulterior motive for it (and that goes for Nintendo execs, as well as Sony and MS)

i dont get thi spart of your post. This is essentially showing they arent directly competeing if youre saying th emarkets and demographics are different, thats the point i think those who say they ARENT competing are making. They are going after a different type of product, its not direct competition.

Market competition is different than comparing cross market sales. If i spend my money on a laptop, i may not spend it on a tv, just because products have similarities doesnt mean they are in competition with one another...so if YOU would have bought a 360 or PS3 if the wii didnt exist is your personal decision....it isnt a decision dictated by the direct competition of consoles, its a decision dictated by your personal decision and taste, two different things. Your personal decisions dont equate to market competition.

 

Who cares about "direct" competition? That's just a word, there's no line where Direct Competition matters and then suddenly indirect competition doesn't matter. The consoles are competing for two things:

1) Gamer's money
2) Developer's interest

obviously winning (2) leads to winning (1). So long as developers will devote resources to Wii development over PS3/360 development, and so long as gamers will dedicate their money to Wii games and Wii accessories and Wi consoles over PS3 games/consoles/accessories, then they are in competition with each other.

No one ever asked about "direct" competition, which is a stupid term executives use to justify the fact that another product is outselling them 3:1. Sure, there are people who will not even think about purchasing a PS3, and some who will not think about purchasing a Wii, but they are the MINORITY. Most people will only own one console, and the three companies are competing for the interest of those people. Even those who own multiple consoles can only buy so many games for them, so they are still competing. And developers can only develop so many games, so they are competing.

The car analogy is flawed because a luxury $80,000 car is the same thing as a $10,000 car just with more comforts. Game consoles are a different beast altogether as the cheaper model can besuperior to the more expensive model due to the games released. If the Xbox was cheaper than the PS2, it wouldn't have sudenly outsold the PS2, because the PS2 had the userbase to attract developers and the games to attract customers. The price doesn't put them in different markets, it just restricts Sony's market.