The_Liquid_Laser said:
Well, let's explicitly spell out what scientific reasoning looks like. The first thing is that scientific reasoning uses Occam's Razor which means that "the simplest explanation is most likely the right one." If one says "systems are selling this way because they are in the same generation", it is simpler than saying "systems are selling this way because of a variety of factors such as marketing, price point, features, and specs". The simpler explanation is most likely the correct one. That is why I am talking about generations. In fact one reason people practice science and develop theories is to give a simple explanation for phenomena that appear complex. A key part of scientific reasoning is to keep things simple while still taking all of the data into account. Secondly, the scientific method can basically be described using the following steps. So, I actually use this process a lot when studying the video game industry. There are some ideas that I am confident with and others where I had to change my thinking. Here is one relevant example of a prediction I made about 7 years ago. When I am talking about scientific reasoning, this is the sort of thing I am talking about. Of course people can, and will, quibble about the details, but this is a solid framework to go by when analyzing the data. |
Occam's Razor is that the simpler explanation is preferred. Not that the simpler explanation is correct. Basically, it's that you don't add anything unnecessary to your explanation. But you still have to include everything that IS necessary.
There are two problems. First of all, generation doesn't explain things as well as looking at multiple factors. Take gen 7 for example which you just like... chucked out cause you didn't like the data. By your framework the Wii, PS3, and XBox 360 are simply both gen 7 consoles... yet, obviously the PS3 and 360 competed with eachother in a way that they didn't really compete with the Wii. Appealing to generations offers no explanation. On the other hand, looking at all the factors, we would expect incredibly similar PS3 and 360 to compete directly and split up the lion's share of the existing market , which they did. We would expect the Wii to take some part of that market (as it launched at the same time, was Nintendo's marketing focus, had some library overlap, and was somewhat comparable in price at various points) but not a great deal, because of the differences in specs and advertising. We would also expect that because it has new features, it would have the potential to reach new customers.
More importantly generations doesn't actually explain anything. You're trying to explain why certain systems compete with eachother. Your conclusion is that systems compete with eachother because they are part of the same generation... Which is just another way to say that they compete with eachother. It's entirely circular.
The one that's actually violating Occam's Razor is you. Technological specs, timing of release, price point, game libraries, marketing etc, are factors that are undeniably real, and I don't think any rational person would deny that these impact how systems will sell overall, and how they will interact with each other. These aren't unnecessary things I'm adding, these are necessary things.
What is being added is the concept of generations. This is something that doesn't exist inherently the same way price points, marketing campaigns, and games libraries do. It's a framework that we're creating to categorize things, perhaps in a useful way or perhaps not. Since we're adding it, it has to have some value, and if not, that's violating Occam's Razor.
So again, I ask, can we make the same predictions based on factors that you and I both know are real and agree are relevant (timing, marketing, library, price point, etc.)? If so, why would we add the concept of generations, which based on this topic is something that people don't agree is relevant, and something people can't agree on the meaning of?
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 02 August 2020
