|
johnlucas said: -Snip- More to come in Volume 2... John Lucas |
First things first, you need a really good editor. You're terribly guilty of prolixity.
Second System:
As far as I can tell, the effect of the second system theory would be very minimal.
-It only includes gamers who buy multiple systems.
-It only includes gamers who are swayed by exclusives.
-It only includes gamers interested in Nintendo franchises and the Wii U hardware.
This sub-section of the market is not large enough to have a significant impact on LT sales.
So if 'exclusivity is key', and the PS4 and Xbox One also have titles you can't play anywhere else, why will Wii U titles be more of an incentive to gamers with only one other system?
The Wii U does not have the traction, novelty, word of mouth, advertising or mass market appeal of it's predecessor. As a result, it's a less appealing product and has less of a differentiation factor to the Xbox One and PS4. Or as the Wii had- the perception of gaming systems in general.
'Wii60' is about as relevant as presenting data taken from a vgchartz forum poll. The focus, like the second system theory, is far too limited.
So, it is a consolation prize. A largely irrelevant one.
Japan is the Captial of the videogame industry:
A Capital implies an area of greater importance. Gaming doesn't need a capital, or a complete reliance on only one territory- a market for publishers or hardware manufactures to focus predominantly on. It's global. The manufacturer or publisher with the stronger global appeal and presence, wins out. It's much the same for many other industries. As it stands, all of the console manufactures could survive without Japan.
Saying Nintendo is the ruler of the gaming market, is to say Sony is the ruler of electronics. Times change, and they have changed. This is actually an extremely important point for you. You rigidly cite gaming trends of the past, using examples from gaming history to strengthen your theories, while at the same time predicting new and unprecedented events to occur. Which is it? If history lays out a blueprint for all to come, how are you also predicting completely new things, that follow no previous trends, to materialize?
Which leads into...
The strongest console never wins:
The inference appears valid. But it's based on the past, and the future can be different (times change) so an argument can be made that it's not valid.
The main point is one you questioned yourself "Maybe just maybe raw horsepower is not the key to victory in the videogaming medium".
The PS4 is not selling on raw power alone. It's an advantage it holds, but the theory that the strongest console never wins, is again, like the second system and Japan is the Capital theories, far too limited in it's scope.
The PS4 may be the strongest console, but it's also competitively priced. It actually launched cheaper than the Xbox One, and is only marginally more expensive than a Wii U. It's already gained massive support from third parties (if you consult gaming history what has that achieved?) and has so far rode of wave of very positive feedback, word of mouth and PR. Sony have entered this generation with a vastly improved online infrastructure, excellent marketing and a much stronger first party development team.
A single pattern that has thusfar existed (for rather obvious reasons) does not negate all the other patterns and trends that we can see pointing to success. It's simply not the be all end all, there is no rational reason to believe so.
