| Mifely said: The idea of "50% market share" by comparing raw sales is pretty messed up. The Wii, being the cheapest console of this generation and a direct successor/replacement of the GameCube, probably co-exists in a colossal number of instances with a 360, a PS3, or both. Given a choice, users will probably choose the 360 or PS3 as their platform of choice for cross-platform releases (for obvious reasons).
"Market share", in the long-run, is really about software, not hardware. Comparing the three current-gen consoles as if most users only owned one exclusively is pretty much the definition of "bad science", especially at this relatively early stage. The only way you could claim one console has definate strangehold on marketshare, for a given console generation (lets not include the PS2, please), would be to take that consoles #s and subtract the sum of its competition first -- this would still put the Wii in the negatives at this moment. That might at least provide a decent starting basis. The fact that the 360 and PS3 are so superior to the Wii, technologically, goes a long way to favor users spending $60 on the HD version of a cross-platform game, as opposed to the "practically last-gen" Wii version at $50, as well. Essentially, any household which owns a Wii, and also a PS3 or 360, will see the Wii's market penetration in that household trumped for cross-platform releases. Much of the Wii's current number advantage over the HD consoles is due to its price, and a solid round of 1st party releases by Nintendo early on. Imagining that people will choose Wii software over 360 or PS3 software of higher caliber is pretty presumptuous. In that sense, the Wii can never truly "beat" its competition. Its not a good enough console to cover the more fervent gamers decently. The Wii can *be* beaten, however. Although that does seem to look less and less likely, assuming that it gets some decent non-casual titles here and there. |
Most people do only own one console. So your entire premise is flawed.
