By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 24 May 2008
Edit Thread
Mifely said:
Kasz216 said:
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.


Really? Would that console be... a PS2? Maybe you'd like to provide some basis for your statement. I merely stated that its possible that multiple consoles cover many of the households. You seem to have some proof that this is not that case? Lets see it -- seriously, it would be beneficial to all if you could share this info.


Consumers largely only buy one console per generation. It's a widely known and accepted fact. The last NPD study put it at 5% in the US. 

That number is going to go down not up as those that are less hardcore (the majority of console owners) are going to enter the market. That PS2 crowd who is happy to own PS2 only.

This was not just true last generation but every generation up till the NES entered the Market.

In fact in Japan the NES was so popular it killed of the Sega Gensis when it was released. The need for 16 bit graphics which I would argue was way more of a leap then the difference between SD and HD grahics weren't enough to motivate a move.