Mr Puggsly said:
zorg1000 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
LOL! Oh boy, now that is spin. Userbase determines relevance, not marketshare.
By your logic, X1 could be more relevant in Europe if MS simply sold less hardware in the US. Because that's logic of determining relevance by marketshare.
Again, the longer this discussion goes on the more this argument falls apart. X1 can probably sell 15 - 20 million units in Europe (depending on how competitive MS is). While the N64 only sold 6 million. That's why X1 is more relevant in Europe.
|
I think u r getting confused, US sales have no bearing on what I'm saying. Market share is a very good way to gauge relevance to the market, and since the gaming market had been growing it now requires more sales to accomplish similar levels of market share compared to the 90s.
SNES+Genesis=17 million
PS1+N64+Saturn=45 million
PS2+GC+XB=67 million
PS3+Wii+360=93 million
See how the overall console market in Europe has consistently grown each generation? SNES sold about 8 million in Europe which gave it just under 50% marketshare so it was relevant to the market. Xbox sold just a little less at 7 million but that only accounted for a little over 10% marketshare so even though it's sales were similar to SNES, it was still much less relevant because of how much the market had grown in that time.
I think u are overestimating Xbox One sales in Europe, I don't see it hitting 15 million let alone 20 million, I would say more like 12 million.
|
Well now you've moved away completely from marketshare because you understand it was a weak argument. You even said N64 and X1 had the same relevance because of marketshare. Again, weak argument.
Well lets wait an see how X1 does in Europe. Its performance depends on how competitive they are. Pricing, exclusives, continued bundling of Fifa, etc.
|
What the fuck are u talking about? My whole post was about marketshare, ur not making a bit of sense.
