| JWeinCom said: I've already defined gamers as gaming enthusiasts/hobbyists versus non-gamers who typically didn't play games before hand. As for the question about how many were previously playstation gamers, we don't have any information on any of that nor any information on the demographics of those who were non-gamers. The only thing we have is how much each gen of Nintendo's consoles have sold. I have countered your arguments, but your "terms" make it pretty much impossible. Case in point, here. Semantics. Non-Gamers are considered people who aren't gamers. Gamers are considered people who have gaming as a hobby. So, I pointed out that a lot of Nintendo's Wii gamers likely came from the PS2 gamers.
That would place them directly in competition, which would directly counter your argument. Claim with no evidence. Your response is since we don't have a detailed study of what PS2 gamers would up buying, we can only compare Nintendo sales figures to Nintendo sales figures. We can't make the assumption based on popular casual franchises no because their appeal is subjective that Nintendo took market share from Sony,
but we can assume that 50 million people who bought Nintendo consoles were all non-gamers. Uhhhh what demographics are backing you up?
So basically, even IF Nintendo did take away Sony gamers from the PS2 era,
that can't count by the rules you set up. We can only use information we have, this is the point of being objective. The only data we could compare Nintendo to is other Nintendo consoles. And anyone who didn't buy one of Nintendo's earlier consoles is branded as a nongamer and is an outlier that doesn't count. I did not say this. As for the information regarding the demographics of the Wii's audience.
It's a rigged game. Sure it is. <- Blatant Sarcasm |
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
