Immortal said:
Torillian said:
True, it's just one of the reasons, but Metallicube has said time and time again he thinks that it makes the numbers unfair. And with this I disagree, because being available in more areas is just Sony utilizing their resources like MS making XBL or Nintendo making games that sell like gangbusters or having a dedicated fanbase. Is it unfair that Sony's machine is the most expensive? no, because that's Sony's fault, just like it is Nintendo's and MS's fault that they haven't expanded out into more countries for distribution.
|
That's not exactly the same thing. The reason Sony gets to have those markets is because of its other markets (TVs and stuff) which give it distribution methods and brand recognition over there. That's an advantage given to them because of something non-gaming. It's something Nintendo and MS couldn't get unless they felt like throwing money down a black hole.
For fanboyish purposes, where we compare consoles against each other, that should be considered an unfair advantage since the advantage is rooted in something else that the company does, not gaming.
Of course, when we're actually doing unbiased analysis, it doesn't matter where the hell or why the hell it sold, it just did. But that's not what we're doing, :P.
|
Sony is in the gaming business because of the money they have from other avenues just like MS, so nothing they do should count if it's the origins that matter. If I go even moreso in that thought process Nintendo used to make playing cards and was able to venture into toys and video games because of their success in that, so they shouldn't count either.
