noname2200 said: richardhutnik said: If the Wii was a fad, then the reality of it leading this generation ends up evidence that the top console sales this generation were the result of a fad.  Think about that a minute, and then ask yourself if this a good thing regarding the future of home consoles. Nonono. My success is the result of my intelligence and hard work. Your success is the result of blind luck. It's not a complicated concept!!!

My view is that whatever best met the wants of the market, combined with proper marketing, resulted in the best sales.  This can't be seen as a far.  But it does mean the videogame market can't follow things as usual, and expect to do well and survive.

TruckOSaurus said: TruckOSaurus said: Max King of the Wild said: TruckOSaurus said: I'm not attacking your definition of a fad, you're free to define it how you want. I didn't quote sales numbers for a reason, I only spoke of sales trends i.e. sales exploding then after a 5 year run dying off very quickly... that's the question I'm asking... does this trend constitute a fad in your eyes? I was 7 in '94. To be more specific what constitutes as a fad in my eyes you would need to look at market trends during that time. That's why I don't agree with Ps1 vs Wii comparison because the market is so drastically different. As for if the Ps1 was a fad I honestly don't know. I have disagreed with people claiming Ps2 was a fad but I couldn't do that same concerning the Ps1 because I don't remember what the market was like 20 years ago. Nor do I know what the market trends and norms were I know the hula hoop was a fad but I wasn't alive in the 1950s. The PS1 saw incredible never-before seen sales when it was new and fizzled out after 5 years, does that constitue a fad? Am I to understand you won't be providing an answer to my question?

I honestly thought I did answer your question. I didn't know hoola hoops were a fad until you told me nor did I know about rubix cube. Though niether one surprises me. As for Ps1 era I have no clue what the market was like to comment on that. Unlike hoola hoops and rubix cubes (That obviously had no market in the sense we are talking about ps1) we need more accurat analysis.

I honestly don't even know why it matters since the Ps1 very may well be a fad. I'm not denying that... so why is it important that I answer your question?

RazorDragon said: ninjablade said: phenom08 said: ninjablade said: wii was a fad and so is kinect but its not a bad thing, even nintendo knows this or else they would have made a more powerful console with an upgraded wii mote. if you wanna know what's not a fad its the PlayStation brand for consoles, why? well because its always releases a powerful system each generation, great third party, good marketing and a brand so powerful it over came 599$. PS1/PS2 were weak lol. All of that and Playstation brand still came in last this gen. Overcame $599? Still hasnt made a dime and still playing catch up is not a sign of overcoming anything. ps1 was powerful for its time and ps2 was more powerful then any pc on the market for its time, just because a console that released a year and half later were more powerful doesn't mean it was weak and so what if it hasn't made a dime, it not about winning the battle its about winning the war, sony will end up selling over 90 milliion units when this gen is over and in great position for nextgen. I don't know if you remember, but during PS2 launch till Dreamcast's death, no PS2 game looked better than Dreamcast games. In fact, every multiplatform between the two looked better on the DC. If the DC lasted the entire generation, the two would probably produce similar looking games. I mean, that's not powerful at all, considering the DC launched one year before the PS2. Also, PS1 received 3D0 ports that looked worse(3D0 launched in 1993, PS1 in 1994). In the end, it was a cheap machine, not meant to be powerful at all, considering PS1's price.

if you looked at the spec comparison ps2 destroyed dreamcast, i know, i was a dreamcast fanboy at the time, dreamcast could'nt do the lighting effects,  poly's, or partical effects the ps2 could. the only thing was ps2 was insanly difficult to program for and dreamcast had better image quality, the only game i remember looking better was DOA2 but that was made on the dreamcast hardware, the noami board i think.

Max King of the Wild said: RolStoppable said: Max King of the Wild said: You also seem to have Ricky Bobby syndrome, "if you aren't first, you're last." Which is absurd... unless you want to call Samsung a failure in the mobile department because they are behind Apple... but I don't think ANYONE would claim that Galaxy sales are a failure Aren't you doing the same thing? Since the Wii didn't outsell the PS2, it has to be a fad. You don't want to accept that it's something between those two extremes. What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously? Now I am beyond befuddled by your comment. I have no way to answer you because I have no clue how you came to such a notion that I said anything of the sort. I don't see how calling something a fad equates to calling something a failure and I don't know how looking at trends of one gen to the next is equatable to what I said at all.

He's talking about the basis behind calling the Wii a fad. You are saying its a fad because it dropped so early. But the thing is, the Wii didn't drop that early. It follows the typical lifespan for a console actually. It only looks like a fad if you compare to the PS2 and to a lesser degree the PS360. This is the Ricky Bobby syndrome under a different banner: Because the Wii didn't last as long as the PS2 & PS360 (consoles with extremely impressive longevity), its a fad.

ninjablade said: RazorDragon said: I don't know if you remember, but during PS2 launch till Dreamcast's death, no PS2 game looked better than Dreamcast games. In fact, every multiplatform between the two looked better on the DC. If the DC lasted the entire generation, the two would probably produce similar looking games. I mean, that's not powerful at all, considering the DC launched one year before the PS2. Also, PS1 received 3D0 ports that looked worse(3D0 launched in 1993, PS1 in 1994). In the end, it was a cheap machine, not meant to be powerful at all, considering PS1's price. if you looked at the spec comparison ps2 destroyed dreamcast, i know, i was a dreamcast fanboy at the time, dreamcast could'nt do the lighting effects,  poly's, or partical effects the ps2 could. the only thing was ps2 was insanly difficult to program for and dreamcast had better image quality.

Of course, PS2 was more powerful. But we can't deny that during the time DC was alive, it was the graphics king, or can we? I mean, only after it's death PS2 games started to look better than DC games(exclusives, of course, as we can't really compare multiplatforms because of the complex achitecture of PS2).

Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: RolStoppable said: Max King of the Wild said: You also seem to have Ricky Bobby syndrome, "if you aren't first, you're last." Which is absurd... unless you want to call Samsung a failure in the mobile department because they are behind Apple... but I don't think ANYONE would claim that Galaxy sales are a failure Aren't you doing the same thing? Since the Wii didn't outsell the PS2, it has to be a fad. You don't want to accept that it's something between those two extremes. What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously? Now I am beyond befuddled by your comment. I have no way to answer you because I have no clue how you came to such a notion that I said anything of the sort. I don't see how calling something a fad equates to calling something a failure and I don't know how looking at trends of one gen to the next is equatable to what I said at all. He's talking about the basis behind calling the Wii a fad. You are saying its a fad because it dropped so early. But the thing is, the Wii didn't drop that early. It follows the typical lifespan for a console actually. It only looks like a fad if you compare to the PS2 and to a lesser degree the PS360. This is the Ricky Bobby syndrome under a different banner: Because the Wii didn't last as long as the PS2 & PS360, its a fad.

Sorry, but no. The two claims aren't comparable. The first is if you arent number one you are a complete failure. The second is looking at a market and it's trends and labeling if a success of one console came to be from being a fad.... Not even remotely close.

Edit: The wii didn't show a typical console sales either. If so it would be past Ps2 right now. NES and SNES (which is a little too old to be comparing) were on the scene for 20 years. The ps1 is the only one up for debate really which was on the market for 11 years. To match that Wii needs 4 more years which will be tough in my opinion. The other consoles stayed on the scene due to healthy sales justifing it. We know Nintendo has no problem doing it.

Max King of the Wild said: Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: RolStoppable said: Max King of the Wild said: You also seem to have Ricky Bobby syndrome, "if you aren't first, you're last." Which is absurd... unless you want to call Samsung a failure in the mobile department because they are behind Apple... but I don't think ANYONE would claim that Galaxy sales are a failure Aren't you doing the same thing? Since the Wii didn't outsell the PS2, it has to be a fad. You don't want to accept that it's something between those two extremes. What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously? Now I am beyond befuddled by your comment. I have no way to answer you because I have no clue how you came to such a notion that I said anything of the sort. I don't see how calling something a fad equates to calling something a failure and I don't know how looking at trends of one gen to the next is equatable to what I said at all. He's talking about the basis behind calling the Wii a fad. You are saying its a fad because it dropped so early. But the thing is, the Wii didn't drop that early. It follows the typical lifespan for a console actually. It only looks like a fad if you compare to the PS2 and to a lesser degree the PS360. This is the Ricky Bobby syndrome under a different banner: Because the Wii didn't last as long as the PS2 & PS360, its a fad. Sorry, but no. The two claims aren't comparable. The first is if you arent number one you are a complete failure. The second is looking at a market and it's trends and labeling if a success of one console came to be from being a fad.... Not even remotely close

Fair enough...but you still haven't shown that the Wii's success was due to novelty rather than quality. Apart from some cloudy conjecture, you haven't shown that the Wii would have still dropped hard even if it received continuous quality from Nintendo.

The Wii was a gimmick and therefore a fad. It was treated as such by the buying audience at large and by third parties.

Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: RolStoppable said: Max King of the Wild said: You also seem to have Ricky Bobby syndrome, "if you aren't first, you're last." Which is absurd... unless you want to call Samsung a failure in the mobile department because they are behind Apple... but I don't think ANYONE would claim that Galaxy sales are a failure Aren't you doing the same thing? Since the Wii didn't outsell the PS2, it has to be a fad. You don't want to accept that it's something between those two extremes. What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously? Now I am beyond befuddled by your comment. I have no way to answer you because I have no clue how you came to such a notion that I said anything of the sort. I don't see how calling something a fad equates to calling something a failure and I don't know how looking at trends of one gen to the next is equatable to what I said at all. He's talking about the basis behind calling the Wii a fad. You are saying its a fad because it dropped so early. But the thing is, the Wii didn't drop that early. It follows the typical lifespan for a console actually. It only looks like a fad if you compare to the PS2 and to a lesser degree the PS360. This is the Ricky Bobby syndrome under a different banner: Because the Wii didn't last as long as the PS2 & PS360, its a fad. Sorry, but no. The two claims aren't comparable. The first is if you arent number one you are a complete failure. The second is looking at a market and it's trends and labeling if a success of one console came to be from being a fad.... Not even remotely close Fair enough...but you still haven't shown that the Wii's success was due to novelty rather than quality. Apart from some cloudy conjecture, you haven't shown that the Wii would have still dropped hard even if it received continuous quality from Nintendo.

Doing that requires more resources than any of us have. It would be on the professional level type research project. Maybe if I were in economics I'd do it for a grad study or something. But as right now I wasn't trying to prove it one way or the other. Just giving my opnion on the matter. If Nintendo treated their own system like a fad wouldn't that be the biggest indication though? I always said I don't understand why Nintendo was the first to the market with a new system when they won this generation. They could have supported the system longer and gained more profits from it. I think it may be an indication that Nintendo themselves were concerned about the Wii maintaining momentum.

Max King of the Wild said: Mnementh said: Max King of the Wild said: Let's compare Model T ford sales to a Honda Civic. Man... Model T's flopped hard... It makes no sense to compare the two and quite frankly that fact that you don't see that is alarming Let's compare PS2 and Wii. Are both fads or none or only one? If only one, which one? And if you see one as a fad and the other not, you probably can explain what the differences are. You are probably the most rational person in this thread so I will discuss with you. I am not opposed to Ps2 vs Wii comparison. It makes a lot more sense than Ps1 to Wii (because Ps1 to Wii made no sense). As for if both were fads? I would deny Ps2 was a fad. It is still chugging on to this day. I doubt the Wii will be on the market 13+ years. The ps2 also never fizzled out as the Wii did (or else Wii would be near Ps2 levels by now since it was looking to break Ps2 sales at first) which I said is a clear indication of a fad as I've said in my OP

You didn't answer me yet. As you state in your post, there is no real difference between the Wii-fad and the PS2-fad. You assume something about the Wii that is not decided yet and also not important for the definition of a fad or not. You stated yourself, that skateboards are around, although the fad is over. The only small difference between PS2 and Wii is, that the PS2-fad lasted a bit longer, but you made yourself examples of fads that lasted even longer than the PS2-fad. So for no reason you explain you claim the wii is a fad but PS2 is not. You seem not to be very logical about this. You shouldn't let your feelings towards these pieces of plastic come into your arguments.