HikenNoAce said:
scottie said:
Search through my post history, and you will find dozens of responses to the exact same point. I am sick of bothering to provide evidence. If you claim that the sky is green, I will respond with "no, of course it's blue". If you follow it up with "prove it". I am not going to bother to get a camera, go to the window, and take and upload a photo. If you want me to believe that the sky is green, you had better have some good evidence.
I'm trying really hard to picture a scenario in which this will happen:
1) Obviously, the first requirements are Nintendo and MS both leave the console business, which I am finding hard to believe.
2) It would also require the PS4 to completely fail, which is VERY unlikely, especially if we point 1 comes true.
3) Even the 2 above would probably not be enough - it would require not only the main competition to fail, but also the PS3 to have some big system selling games. They currently have nothing that can push the sort of numbers that you are predicting, but I suppose if Nintendo leaves the console (and handheld) businesses, they might end up making some games for the PS3.
Help me out here, I would really like to believe that you have reasons for this level of confidence in the PS3.
|
1. No. They don't have to. The PS3 just needs to keep on selling, which it will do just like the PS1 and PS2 did after their respective successors came out.
2. See my point above.
3. Not necessarily. What system sellers did the PS1 after the PS2 released? And yet, it sold 25M. What system seller did the PS2 have in 2008 and onwards (Persona 4 alone isn't enough to justify the 25M+ sales)?
The point is that PS systems will continue to sell when their successor comes out because of the emerging markets and but also because of a lower price point. And you'd be delusional to think that the PS3 will stay $270 until it is discontinued.
At the end of the day, there is nothing that backs your statement.
|
Reasons PS1 and PS2 are different to the PS3
1) They had around 75% market share, not 30%.
2) They were cheap to manufacture using fairly standard components, meaning that they could be sold profitably at low prices.
3) They had amazing exclusive 3rd party
Reasons why the PS1 and PS2 are similar to the PS3.
1) The name starts with PS.
So yeah, simply saying that the PS3 will have legs because the PS1 and PS2 did is as likely to be right as people that were sayign the PS3 was going to dominate its gen because the PS1 and PS2 did.
The PS3 is nothing like the PS1 and PS2, thus you can't simply assume it will follow their patttern.
Turnign to point 3. You have already identified the reasons the PS2 continued to sell after PS3 release, so the PS2 didn't need exclusives. It could sell just off yearly EA/Activision games because. The PS3 can't do that, because it lacks all the advantages the PS1 and PS2 had.
As for persona selling 25 million (or indeed any) consoles. The highest selling game in the franchsie is under 1M sales. I'm going to pretend you didn't say that.
So to summarise:
*It can't be sold cheap like the PS2, because it has the cell, and is the most powerful of its gen, where PS2 was the (2nd including DC) least.
* It doesn't have the market share to guarentee it gets annual releases such as GH, CoD, Fifa for as long as the PS1 and PS2 did.
* It has no system sellers left (exclusive, big games, with no previous game in the franchise already on the console)