Impulsivity said:
First off niche means a special area of demand for a product or service, has nothing to do with demand which I'll get to. Value and cost are NOT the same. If you pay 30 dollars for a pet rock and 300 dollars for a dog you might contend that the rock is the better value. It is not, it just costs less. If you go to a website and design a computer do you look at straight cost and get the cheapest thing you can? Do you put in 512MB of Ram, a 7 year old pentium processor and install Windows 95 on it? Or do you look for a combination of low price and high performance that ends with, say, a 1000 dollar computer that does a lot of things and uses components that are reasonably priced? On its face the 300 dollar computer with the small specs is a better value, but it isn't, it just costs less which is different.
Similarly the Wii has around 33% of the PS3's capabilities and yet costs around 70% of the PS3's price. That is a better cost but a bad value. The PS3 on the other hand, if a blu ray player alone, would cost 300+ dollars. It has many more features then that all of which are expensive on their own (media hub, network hard drive, game system ect) and yet costs very little relative to the value it presents, the opposite of the Wii charging 250 dollars for very limited functionality. As to "mainstream" and "Niche" those do not only refer to popularity but also to functionaliry. If you have something that is popular but only useful in limited situations it is still niche. Lets say the Ipod never expanded to things like the iphone and touch, it was niche in its original incarnation despite being popular. All it did at first was play music and so had very limited function. To produce a 2003 ipod and charge 250 dollars would be madness, for the same 200 dollars you can get an ipod with vastly more features that also makes calls, uses 3rd party software and many more things. The iphone is a wide spectrum device, it can do many things out of the box, the old ipod is niche, it has very limited uses out of the box even if it does those limited things well and sells a lot. It has moved beyond its music playing "niche"
Similarly the Wii is niche in that it is almost entirely limited to playing highly casual games with poor graphics desired by "casual" gamers. It has no features other then playing those games, it is not very expandable, it won't ever be a DVR, media hub, blu ray player....anything other then a simple, niche, gaming device. Alternately the PS3 is becoming a wide spectrum device more like the iphone. You can install software, play blu ray discs, use it as a media hub, beam things (games, movies, music) to your PSP wherever it is over wifi ect. It is aiming to be more then a simple toy, and is succeeding. The Wii on the other hand only WANTS to be a toy, hence the idea that the PS3 and Wii are not direct competitors. |
No, you're absolutely right, here in bizarro world, the Wii is niche and expensive, while the PS3 is a great value product with tons of amazing games that appeal to everyone......bizarro world.
Also, here, the PS3 is worth the price, and is literally stocked to the gills with JRPGs.
Here in bizarro world, the PS3 is as good as the PS2, no question, and it has a bright future as well, whereas the Wii's future is dim. It'll be lucky to pass the gamecube.
Enough stoking your anger.
I literally cannot believe you actually have the gaul to tell me, of all people, that the Wii is a niche device, while the PS3 is mainstream. You must be out of your mind.
Get told now:
You base your main assertion on the theory of relativity. The relative value of a PS3 is greater than the relative value of the Wii, at their current price points. This is a lucky coincidence for the PS3, because it started off much more costly, where the Wii is still the same price from its launch. This is because its percieved value is much higher, averagely, than the PS3, because despite all the crap features the PS3 tacked on, mainstream society still views it as a gaming machine.
So, then, Sony was stupid with the PS3, you admit that. Otherwise they would have kept the cost low, since that is the main component of the Wii's victory, and not that the mainsteam perceives it to have greater value, which is the reality that you deny.
Now, you have so eloquently pulled your %33 and %70 figures out of your ass. Consider this calling you on them. Afterall, both consoles play games. Some games are better than others. Lets say that on the wide scale of game machines from the history of time, these two are actually very close. Lets call the atari a %1, and lets say the Wii is at %97 functionality, while the PS3 is a %98 functionality.
That is entirely opinion. You can't just pull numbers out of your ass and say crap to "prove" your "arguments." I own a PS3, and in my opinion, it pales in comparison to the use I get out of my Wii, unless you can find a way to perfectly compare a motion control and IR with a blu-ray device, then your argument is dead in the water(as you knew it was before you ever posted it, since its an opinion/hit piece against the Wii.
You know what the best thing is? The Sony CEO has played the Wii, but I bet you a dollar that Miyamoto has never even seen a PS3, except maybe on TV.
Let me round it up for you. You're a sony fanboy, but you think you're the Sonyfoldor. You believe that somehow up is down, Superman is black, and the Wii is an overpriced and underperforming niche gaming system, while the PS3 is not only the greatest thing since sliced bread, but also a great value for the price, and always has been even when it was 600 dollars, and the mainstream love the hardcore PS3, and dislike the niche casual Wii.
I say this to you, BIZARRO WORLD.
B
I
Z
A
R
R
O
W
O
R
L
D
Also, just to straighten the record here and sum up, the PS3 launched at 599 USD was it? Or was it 499? Anyway, its price has dropped now, I assume. That's becuse the PS3 sold poorly due to poor perception of value(because mainsteam thinks it just gaming device). At the exhorbatant price, the PS3 was indeed a much poorer value than the Wii, no doubt, especially since at the time, BR hadn't won the war(Keeping in mind my personal opinion that the Wii is still the better relative value). Therefore, because the consumer demanded it with nonpurchase, Sony was required to cut their price. On the other hand, the consumer has demanded a price raise in the Wii and got it via ebay and bundles. So, if the PS3 is a better relative value, it's not because Sony cares about the consumer, it's because the mainstream consumer decided the PS3 wasn't worth it, and Sony had to lower the price. Since value isn't quantifiable, and its only relevant measure is consumer demand, then according to mainstream, casual, ignorant, and calous consumer demand, the Wii is selling much faster, and has a much higher relative value than the PS3.
What?
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
