MikeB said:
1) I think we are still very early into this generation (still the PS3's first year in Europe and most parts of the world), quite a few people who bought a Wii come from a more hardcore GameCube fan background. The previous generation the PS2 sold many times more than the Wii sold so far. It's not a sprint race. 2) The PS3 and Wii have very little games overlap, of the top 20 games for both platforms only Guitar Hero 3 overlaps. It may eventually be interesting for casuals to own both consoles. 3) If industry predictions and outlooks are correct, high definition (visual + audio) will play an increasingly important role this generation of home consoles. So the PS3 demand should get stronger over the years. |
1) If the Wii is mostly selling to GC owners, why didn't the GC sell faster at the beginning? The PS2 has been out 7 more years than the Wii. Of course the PS2 has sold more than the Wii has sold so far. And before you say it, the Wii is tracking sales in each region of the PS2, so they selling very similarly.
2) I agree on the first part... but not the second part. Casuals will find games that interest them on the console that they own. And they hardly have enough time to play those games. Why spend another $200 on the PS3 when it gets to that point to play more games that you don't have time for? Some may buy it... but not enough will. That's like asking why didn't more people buy a GC or Xbox, when they had games that we're completely similar to PS2 games (Super Smash Bros comes to mind, don't know if there's anything like that).
3) Just like the industry predictions and outlooks were correct when they said the Wii would be lucky to sell 15 million lifetime, and that the PS3 would be ahead by 2008?
Again, why didn't the GC sell so fast if all these Nintendo fans are buying the Wii? And does that mean the Wii will stop selling in 2 or 3 months because it's sold to all of them? Have you read any of CrazzyMan's threads about Marioboys?
And then it was hit by the worse drought of games ever. Then the PS took off. Yes, the PS didn't do very well at first, because everyone thought that the N64 would do so much better. But once the N64 was released, and 3rd parties realized it wasn't the "winning" consoles, they jumped shipped, and the PS took off. The PS2 had the advantage of coming out first, and having all the support right off the bat, because everyone thought (correctly) that the PS2 was the console of the future (at that time). Imagine if the Wii would have had the support from 3rd parties that the PS2 had when it launched. It's crazy to think about.
The Sims has been very popular amongst more casual gamers. Home is a bit like this but with more customization and SecondLife like social interactivity with some sparkles of Sony's magic dust on top. I think this could be huge if the word gets around amongst casuals.
Yes, the movie industry is much bigger than the gaming industry. So it's true that the blu-ray speaks to more people than the wiimote may. But unfortunately, at least for 3rd parties, these blu-ray player owners may not buy any games. So Sony will win with blu-ray royalties, but 3rd parties will lose. And when they start losing they jump ship. And we see what happens when they jump ship. That and regular blu-ray players will become cheaper than the PS3 by the time the masses want blu-ray and are ready for it. So they'll end up buying a regular player, and not a PS3.
The Sims became popular because it didn't require massive computer requirements (at least until you added the 20 expansion packs, which require 2 harddrives just for the games), and since most people have computers (no idea about percentages, from a poll of everyone on this site, 100% of people have a computer), it sold really well. Home is similar to The Sims, from what you implied and what I've heard, but people have to buy a PS3 in order to play it. And not many casuals/mainstreams are going to pay $400 for one game, especially since many have already chosen the Wii with WiiSports.
