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?

He tends to ignore posts that are too precise in facts and comparisons.

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. 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.

You just listed some of the best selling consoles of all time. No, they didn't have a typical lifespan. Furthermore, why are you even mentioning the NES & SNES? As you've already said, the market was much different then.

You seem to be under the impression that if a console doesn't sell for 10+ years, then its a fad. This is flawed on two levels. Firstly, you are focusing only on the extremes. Why is that if a successful console doesn't live for 10+ years, then it's a fad? There should be a healthy middleground between the two. Where do you draw the line between a fad, a console with extreme longevity, and a console in between?

And secondly, not every console is meant to last ten years. Nintendo's strategy seems to revolve around a 5-7 year cycle. Sure, you could still call their consoles fads, but it seems odd say a company's strategy revolves around a series of fad just because their cycles are a few years shorter than another company (Sony).

Max King of the Wild said: dahuman said: I've never seen a fad that lasted this long before in my entire life, so if the Wii is a fad, then so are most things that don't last more than 6 years and didn't sell 100mil, and that category only belongs to the PS2 and Nintendo Handhelds lol. Backstreet Boys, Skateboarding, Hoola hoops, and almost evey fad I can think of is still around

But that the PS2 is still around was the reason you gave me to explain why the PS2 is no fad. I'm confused...

Jay520 said: You seem to be under the impression that if a console doesn't sell for 10+ years, then its a fad. This is flawed on two levels. Firstly, you are focusing only on the extremes. Why is that if a successful console doesn't live for 10+ years, then it's a fad? There should be a healthy middleground between the two. Where do you draw the line between a fad, a console with extreme longevity, and a console in between? And secondly, not every console is meant to last ten years. Nintendo's strategy seems to revolve around a 5-7 year cycle. Sure, you could still call their consoles fads, but it seems odd say a company's strategy revolves around a series of fad just because their cycles are a few years shorter than another company (Sony).

Sega targeted at even shorter console-cycles looking at their releases.

Saying that, you will also have to admit that gaming was also somewhat of a fad for a time. Makes you wonder if there is still an untapped gaming market for "family play" in general...

I know my in-laws own a Wii and it's for two reasons: Wii brew (internet media streaming), Wii bowling & Band Hero...

(haha I almost left that as "Hand Hero".....)

Motion controls are clearly a gimmick, that is why the PS4 has it. I don't understand why Sony continues follow whatever fad is hot, rumble, analog sticks, motion controls, 3D.

Anybody buying such a gimmick console is clearly a rube willing to invest in any flash in the pan, I will continue to wait for Dreamcast 2.

RazorDragon said: 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).

i remember bouncer looking better then anything on dreamcast but it was called a tech demo but it only took the console its first e3 to blow it out the water, i wouldn't say it was graphics king, i would say they were on par but gt3 amd mgs2 looked like a generation  ahead honestly

ninjablade said: dahuman said: I've never seen a fad that lasted this long before in my entire life, so if the Wii is a fad, then so are most things that don't last more than 6 years and didn't sell 100mil, and that category only belongs to the PS2 and Nintendo Handhelds lol. there are reasons why wi is considered a fad, sales dropped like a rock and its successer is selling 120,000 units world wide a month. if that's that a fad i don't know what is.

I have a feeling I concur with your last sentence.

But I'm not entirely sure what it says, so...

noname2200 said: ninjablade said: there are reasons why wi is considered a fad, sales dropped like a rock and its successer is selling 120,000 units world wide a month. if that's that a fad i don't know what is. I have a feeling I concur with your last sentence. But I'm not entirely sure what it says, so...

XD

there are reasons why wi is considered a fad, sales dropped like a rock and its successer is selling 120,000 units world wide a month. if that's NOT a fad i don't know what is. i think wiiu sales prove that, i don't think mario or zelda is gonna save them when there selling 30,000 units world wide a week, if it wasn't a fad, just the wii brand alone would carry them to 10 million in 2013.