| Rpruett said: Joe schmoe could by a 360 for $300 in 2005 and have fun with it. He'd need a memory card to save game data (there's another $20-40), but that's no different than literally every other console on the market at that time (besides Xbox 1). Something tells me VGA cables and wired controllers worked fine then too (both also industry standard), hell Wii and PS3 still come with VGA cables in every SKU afaik. On a console that's big draw is the online interface, market place, etc....You're damn right having only a 'memory card' is a big hinderance. Especially on a console that is far more focused on online play than solo play. You answered your own question. It absolutely was different than any other console on the market at that time (Because the other models of 360's showed this). And despite how you might want to discount the Core, it still existed and was still only $50 more than a Wii. GameCube most certainly had a greater entry point price gap ($100) and that was actually key it's marketing (as it was for Dreamcast). All this is really beside the point though, since you still seem unable to bring up any shred of concrete evidence that pricepoint was a driver here. You can keep reiterating the same unfounded logical fallacy if you like, but until you can do more than argue in a circle, I think we're done here. And Microsoft was far from an established brand. Microsoft was a distant 2nd/3rd placed ranged console last generation. This generation people were more curious to see what Sony had brought to the table and Nintendo had a namesake that was much larger in the console business than Microsoft. Had Sony released a 'Core' system that was only $50 more than a Wii and the Wii still outsold it, you would have a point. However, when the previous generations 'winner' comes out and announces a price of $600 all excitement and general positive attitude went downhill and shifted focus.
I don't think this is nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. |
Eh, almost all 360's year one hits (GeoWars, Dead Rising, Gears, Oblivion, Saints Row, etc) were primarily lauded as or for their single player experiences. It really wasn't until 360's second year (and games like Halo 3 or Modern Warfare) that multiplayer really emerged as the defining and driving market for the console, and Live really came into it's own as a selling point.
And now the standard's shifted to price differential with the previous market leader? Do me a favor and let me know when you decide to finally set down those goalposts. ;)
I've adressed the historical price ratios already... they were higher on GameCube ($100 to PS2/Xbox). And since you seem stuck on launch pricepoints, they were higher for N64 as well ($100 to PS1, $200 to Saturn). Frankly, the fact that you can't seem to reconcile the Core's existence isn't my problem. And neither is your-bait-n-sitch on suddenly centering around "market leader". Just because Sony blew it with PS3 pricing doesn't mean Nintendo was inherently pre-ordained to take over. Especially when you had a 10 million strong 360 base, and new consumers could get the system for less than that magic $300 barrier.
And Wii's attach ratio is fine, what's historically off about it? It's not as good as 360/PS2 admittedly, but it's still generally on par with GC/Xbox/PS3. Wii Sports likely helps and hurts that simultaneously. So does the record breaking hardware sales, systems that sell slower tend to get higher ratios due to length of ownership.
Still, the central problem remains for you... there isn't any real evidence the $250 pricepoint was what drove massmarket adoption and record breaking sales for Wii. And until you can deliver on that, your argument is hollow at best.
