fordy said:
Edgeoflife said:
fordy said:
Edgeoflife said:
Not sure about ps1 but ps2 it was a big part of it, the other part though was getting all the 3rd parties in exclusivity contracts, but if it wasn't for marketing and those deals dreamcast would of kicked its ass |
Marketing does not always imply success. Microsoft threw a ton of money towards the Xbox last gen, and it barely managed to scrape into second. There are always multipkle factors.
For instance, which one would you consider an average consumer to stop at with interest at a department store: a Move setup with The Fight, or a Kinect setup with Kinect Adventures?
One thing I would give Sony credit for, and that is trying to make motion more appealing to the hardcore, but I don't think it's going to work, as stated before, plus on top of it, there's a risk of alienating potential casual buyers, which is supposed to be the base for this kind of tech.
|
Depends completely on the demographic, if it was a street punk he would go for the fighting game where he can actually punch, if it was a soccer mom she'd go for the cartoony looking game, and marketing doesn't always equal sucess but it plays a major role in it and the fact remains that move is the better product for the application of gaming, it doesn't have the same appeal though but when looked at objectively even for causual games move is the better choice in most cases
|
I honestly dont know of any "street punks" who arent hardcore gamers, or better yet, hang around a department store.
Which leads me back to the original argument. Move might be better or it might not be. The way casuals see it (keep in mind that these are people who do NOT follow any gaming news whatsoever. They do not look at area resolutions, framerates or controller latency) they see the Move marked as new, and their initial response is "That's NOT new".
|
I'm not really arguing with you, and frankly I'm glad Sony chose to make a quality product instead of catering to the people who don't know better either way
