| Jaeron said: "See what I mean about being desperate to prove your argument? Your arguments are weak and unfounded." My argument has always been the same from the start. There are more households to sell the 360 to than the Wii. The Wii will sell less units simply because it exists in more homes, and with a failure rate as low as the Wii, (Less than 3% of wii's fail) it's not surprising the 360 outsold the Wii in recent numbers. For math sake, let's say the world has 1M people. The Wii has sold 720,000 units. The 360 has sold 350,000 units. This leaves 280,000 homes that don't own a Wii, and 650,000 homes that don't own a 360. If we were to assert only 100,000 people from all people will never own a system, and there are only two years left in this cycle before no one will ever again purchase a system from this generation, obviously the 360 will outsell the Wii over the next 2 years. Hopefully this simplified example will help you to understand. I'm no where near desperate to prove my argument. My argument is sound, and my facts are there. Fact B) The high failure rate of the 360 adds to the number of 360's sold, couple this with the amazingly low failure rate of the Wii at less than 3% and there's the obvious conclusion that a percentage of 360's sold were sold because the original failed, and more 360's will be sold because of this problem. So Montana Hatchet. I'll offer you the same. Can you dispute my "weak arguments" which I present as facts to argue my overall picture, which is stated as the first (non quoted) paragraph of this post? (You won't) |
Lol, you're fun to bait. So easy.
Still toying with that argument? Well let's look at your math example. You set the limit of consumers pretty low and the sales of the consoles relatively high. The sales of a console are not set by some pre-determined pool of potential users, but by its ability to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible. The Wii got a lot of its sales from people who aren't traditionally gamers, and there are many, more people that fit this demographic. Even if the gamer market was sucked up at this point, the Wii would still be able to maintain sales by appealing to new demographics.
And let's examine your argument about the number of households. The DS has sold to a lot more households than the Wii, so why isn't it selling worse? Why wasn't the Wii selling worse than the PS3 and/or 360 this whole time even though it's been in more households for most of the generation? Doesn't your rule apply to say...2008 or 2009 also? When did it become that the Wii has sold enough that it's acceptable for it completely lose momentum? Did the PS2 suddenly lose momentum in 2004 or 2005 because it had already reached a huge number of households? The PS2 had sales far higher (relatively) versus its competitors than the Wii, and yet its sales continued to be consistent year over year.
Now I know you don't like to listen to facts, but just accept when you've lost. A poor, unfounded argument just won't work.
Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to respond to your really stupid "failure rate" argument. The same argument some people will use to "excuse" the PS2's high sales. Actually, if you think about it, the 360's failure rate was highest early in its cycle. In fact, as new models are introduced and the failure rates declined, sales actually seem to increase year over year (contradicting your entire argument). If the 360 was only selling so well because of its failure rate, then why didn't it sell best near the beginning of its cycle?
Oh forget it.
