By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Cinemablend: Wii U Is Winning Next-Gen Gaming, Not Xbox One Or PS4

Aielyn said:
gigantor21 said:
The Dreamcast was a cheaper system with FAR better games available when the PS2 first came out, too. It also saw sales jump in a big way around Christmastime...just like most systems do every year no matter how well they're doing overall. And the Gamecube saw a much bigger jump in sales during it's second November than the WiiU. None of that helped the either system gain market share or software support outside of their core fanbases.

I suggest you read my last post, directly above this one.

And yes, if someone had posted at the time of the PS2 launch that the Dreamcast was the better system at that point in time, I probably would have agreed with them then, too. Because it is entirely possible for one system to be the better purchase at a certain point in time, with a given amount of knowledge, but for it to be the wrong choice in the long term. Of course, you're not going to admit that it's possible for the Wii U to have the better library in a year's time, or two year's time, etc, so in the end, there's not much point continuing this debate - you have already decided on the "truth", which is a problem for me, because I deal in facts, not truths.

You know, I've noticed something about console warmongers - they like to invoke the Dreamcast to prove their arguments, quite a bit. It's like the gamer equivalent of invoking the Nazis. From now on, if someone points to Dreamcast and goes "that would have applied to the Dreamcast, too", I'm going to mock the hell out of them for having just lost the argument, in the exact same way that a person who invokes the Nazis to win an argument necessarily loses the argument (unless it's an argument about the Nazis to begin with, of course).

Funny to hear you start bringing up the WiiU's future prospects now when you've been making such a big deal about how the WiiU is doing better now. I don't see how the prospect of the WiiU being better or worse in the future disproves anything when you don't know any more about how things will shake out than I do, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make in the first place.

But judging from the fact that you decided to associate any mention of the Dreamcast with Nazi comparisons, you are right about one thing; there really isn't any point in going any further.



Have some time to kill? Read my shitty games blog. http://www.pixlbit.com/blogs/586/gigantor21

:D

Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Oh dear god. Please for a moment, stop and think about what you are saying. How do you think the masses as you like to put it would have been able to deem whether Haze and Lair were of quality or were not? Did they look at the cover and go “Well that does not look like a quality game”. Did they look through screenshots and videos which did in fact look promising? Most likely they looked at the review which contributed to the purchase. You keep claiming that I don’t understand how “the masses” work yet your own argument is contradicting in itself. Either they buy in an impulsive unpredictable manner, and are completely affected by marketing or they are more intelligent that and do they’re homework. The fact of the matter is that it is a mix of both, which is why certain games of lower quality end up selling better than others that are critically acclaimed. As a Nintendo fan I will admit, Carnival games and Wii party didn’t flop because a significant amount of soccer moms who purchase the Wii for there family look at games like that and go “well that looks fun for the kids”. 

@Bold Do you have any statistics to prove that they go looking for reviews ? (Not from the forums but from the so called "soccer moms" because I am looking for non biases all around.) You clearly demonstrated that you obviously don't understand how masses will buy a game. The masses do NOT impulsively buy games immediately. The way a game can be successful towards the masses is that a small fraction of them are willing to try them. If they deem the game as a high quality title then they will spread words to others and you get a wild fire affect of demand. Games like mario kart and NSMBWII did not sell upon tens of millions on release. The reason they have attained these legs is through the words of other parts of the masses. Your assumption that they impulsively buy is incorrect and disingenuous at best. 

The masses do not care about review scores, it's as simple as that otherwise their wouldn't be such distortions in sales across each games. 

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

I don’t feel it was excessive. It was an analogy that gave a comparison. Purchasing a game for the ‘masses” is still an investment for them. So your saying that an experienced gamer would not be able to analyze a persons interest and then give a non biased opinion of a game to help direct them to an experience they would enjoy?  I don’t think you understood what I was trying to say. The opinion to analyze someone’s interest and recommend them a genre that would suit them would be substantially of more value coming from an experienced gamer than a soccer mom saying “well just buy this game because it looks fun”. They wouldn’t be able to give the same analysis for a game recommendation based on this lack of experience and knowledge. Therefore, financial adviser vs. stoner is not that far fetched when comparing!

You see the problem with "experienced gamers" is that they are biased by their own defintion of what a defines a "quality" game. The reality of it all is that the market responds differently. The market simply has the greater presence in comparison to the "experienced gamer". What the "market" thinks about the "experienced gamer" is simply irrelevant to the amount of votes that were shown. 

@Bold The problem with that logic is your equating opinions that pertains to games compared to a financial adviser that has credentials to do the jobs.

The votes or opinions of a "soccer mom" and a "gamer" is equal as far as the market is concerned, it's as simple as that. The recommendation of a financial adviser is incomparable to that of a stoner because a financial adviser is trained to manage something as objective as financial wealth and for that your example was definitely far fetched.

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

You’re completely underestimating the ability of marketing. You’re also not factoring in that recognition is key. If the public is not educated to the existence of a console and believes it’s an expensive add on, that will impact the sales of such said console. The Wii U has worth while exclusives, there are many sites known for low balling Nintendo games and having quite the “hate-on” so to speak who have given good reviews for the likes of Pikmin, Zelda and SMW3D.  The games are not Nintendo’s problem (at this point), Nintendo's problem is that the hardware itself is not selling. They haven’t managed to make the hardware look attractable and came in at too high of a price due to the game pad. The system looks as if the Wii was bundled with an add-on at a higher price. Most people as I’ve stated over and over again still have no clue what that the system even exists.  Nintendo have not be able to properly communicate that to the customer “which” is the reason for it’s sales.  As for SMW3D, since its release, The Wii U has gone from 3.95mill to 4.5 in a matter of a few weeks, which shows Mario moving consoles, just not to the extent that some people thought. 

Marketing will do nothing if the masses do not realize you definition of quality pertaining to a game. Therefore these games deserve low sales because the masses just simply do not have anything worthwhile to mention about these games. If the WII U truly had worthwhile exclusives then they wouldn't be having non existant legs. Again I have to keep telling you that "SOFTWARE SELLS HARDWARE". What exactly is so hard to understand about this statement ? Price can be an issue but all it comes down to a gaming console is the games. Would you rather a console with all your favourite game that cost $1000 for a console or would you rather a $100 console with absolutely no games ? The masses know what the WII U is, it's just that they don't want it as you can clearly see for a year now. SM3DW didn't move alot of hardware because the market thought it was a low quality title. In other words SM3DW is a flop compared to other mario titles. 

 

It’s rather amusing. You’re asking me to provide statistics, claiming my views are incorrect yet you have absolutely nothing to back up your opinion which in fact is just an opinion; however an article I found showed that in 1998 (it’s obviously gotten worse) showed that impulse buying contributed to $4Billion in North America alone. http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20130712/MONEY01/307120006/ The Wii being the “hot item” for a few years…. Well, you get the picture. Please provide any other system where a game with a universal rating of 5 that garnered multi millions in sales, for any other system…..oh wait, you cant! You can’t because it did not exist prior to the Wii. You’re also falsely grouping everyone together. The masses are divided into groups and prior to the Wii, the soccer mom “was not” buying the console for herself. This type of demographic did not really exist. Your also forgetting a lot of shovel ware was being moved off the shelves when the Wii was introduced. The system itself was a phenomenon and people were “impulsively buying” any piece of software from what they could get their hands on, especially during the holidays, the shelves were bare. Did you not visit the stores during the first 2 years of it’s existence?  Instead of claiming I’m being disingenuous, back up your opinion please.

 

Yes we are biased. A good game is one that can provide a rich experience and enjoyment, however, that doesn’t mean that I would recommend Dark Souls for my 7 year old daughter or for my mom because they would not enjoy the experience. Due to my gaming experience I have the ability to discern what someone would enjoy, its simple psychology that you can apply when you’re knowledgeable with games. The rest of your response is absolute nonsense and at this point I believe you are just grasping at straws in order to keep it going. You talk about the market yet, you do not go into how it changes. Take a brief look at the history of Carnival games when the “impulse buying “ stopped and the Wii was no longer a hot commodity (New carnival games only moved 540,000 copies).
What job I use an analogy for is irrelevant. As stated previously, for some people “A GAME IS AN INVESTMENT”. This holds true especially if the consumer is on an income that only allows a limited number of purchases.  The gamer vote is also more relevant as the game will continue purchasing down the road where the soccer mom wont. Companies loose money due to this or have terrible sales such as described above.

 

 

Again as describe previously, that statement is incorrect. The value of the Wii was the motion control and the ease of use. In this case the console itself and its design was the significant contributor to the success of it’s games. Impulse buying as stated early played a major factor in games that were quite terrible selling overly well which when he hype died down, so did the shovel ware sales. I do not believe you have clearly read my responses. I never argued that software does not sell hardware. You seem to digress from the actual debate quite often. The masses do not know what the Wii U is, hell there were articles where employees of stores did not know the difference. The Wii U has been dead for quite some time and it will take more than Mario to get the heart beat going. For a console to increase its user base by 13% in two weeks since Mario’s release means thatit’s moving console and by your numbers is not a low quality title



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

It’s rather amusing. You’re asking me to provide statistics, claiming my views are incorrect yet you have absolutely nothing to back up your opinion which in fact is just an opinion; however an article I found showed that in 1998 (it’s obviously gotten worse) showed that impulse buying contributed to $4Billion in North America alone. http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20130712/MONEY01/307120006/ The Wii being the “hot item” for a few years…. Well, you get the picture. Please provide any other system where a game with a universal rating of 5 that garnered multi millions in sales, for any other system…..oh wait, you cant! You can’t because it did not exist prior to the Wii. You’re also falsely grouping everyone together. The masses are divided into groups and prior to the Wii, the soccer mom “was not” buying the console for herself. This type of demographic did not really exist. Your also forgetting a lot of shovel ware was being moved off the shelves when the Wii was introduced. The system itself was a phenomenon and people were “impulsively buying” any piece of software from what they could get their hands on, especially during the holidays, the shelves were bare. Did you not visit the stores during the first 2 years of it’s existence?  Instead of claiming I’m being disingenuous, back up your opinion please.

@Bold Oh but I absolutely do have data to back up my claim. Where's your end of the bargain ? I simply asked where do you have data claiming that the masses actually look for reviews ? I refuted your incorrect claim that the masses will purchase a game based off of review scores simply because there are distortions of game sales everywhere else around the market. If a survey is 10 or so years old then it holds no relevance to representing anything so you pretty much shot yourself in the foot on this one. Just 4 billion dollars ? That's actually small in comparison to the rest of the population.If we assume that it got 10x worse (That's being generous.) , it's still a small amount.

Didn't your data above you say that impulse buying accounts for very little of the sales that happen ? If anything the data above you just furthers against your point that the masses will just go on any impulse buying spree. It sounds like you made a poorly thought out post on your part. 

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Yes we are biased. A good game is one that can provide a rich experience and enjoyment, however, that doesn’t mean that I would recommend Dark Souls for my 7 year old daughter or for my mom because they would not enjoy the experience. Due to my gaming experience I have the ability to discern what someone would enjoy, its simple psychology that you can apply when you’re knowledgeable with games. The rest of your response is absolute nonsense and at this point I believe you are just grasping at straws in order to keep it going. You talk about the market yet, you do not go into how it changes. Take a brief look at the history of Carnival games when the “impulse buying “ stopped and the Wii was no longer a hot commodity (New carnival games only moved 540,000 copies).
What job I use an analogy for is irrelevant. As stated previously, for some people “A GAME IS AN INVESTMENT”. This holds true especially if the consumer is on an income that only allows a limited number of purchases.  The gamer vote is also more relevant as the game will continue purchasing down the road where the soccer mom wont. Companies loose money due to this or have terrible sales such as described above.

@Bold If it was truly nonsense then why didn't you go about challenging it then ? The market is based off of human nature if you hadn't noticed. Much like humans, the market is always finding a better way to strive towards better products so the market is clearly the better way of telling where what the better product is. The "experienced gamers" votes are essentially just as equal as the rest of the market so none of them takes precedence over another. The new carnival games probably isn't a "better" product according to the market so why should they buy it ? If the gamer vote was truly more relevant then why is the gaming market not doing so hot ? Why are we gonna suffer a decrease in game sales ? Why are we going into a new generation of contraction ? How do you know that the WII was an artificial growth if there is literally no one willing to take up the job of getting them back ? Nintendo as well as the rest of the gaming industry is contracting simply because they are refusing to get them back. YOU WOULD HAVE BEING RIGHT HAD THERE BEING A WII 2 BUT INSTEAD WERE LEFT WITH A GAMECUBE 2. 

IN THE END YOUR LEFT WITH THE NULL AND VOID POINT THAT THE WII WAS CREATED DUE TO IMPULSE.

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Again as describe previously, that statement is incorrect. The value of the Wii was the motion control and the ease of use. In this case the console itself and its design was the significant contributor to the success of it’s games. Impulse buying as stated early played a major factor in games that were quite terrible selling overly well which when he hype died down, so did the shovel ware sales. I do not believe you have clearly read my responses. I never argued that software does not sell hardware. You seem to digress from the actual debate quite often. The masses do not know what the Wii U is, hell there were articles where employees of stores did not know the difference. The Wii U has been dead for quite some time and it will take more than Mario to get the heart beat going. For a console to increase its user base by 13% in two weeks since Mario’s release means thatit’s moving console and by your numbers is not a low quality title

@Bold Again you keep forgetting that "software sells hardware". No matter how well designed the console is, it is going to be the GAMES that determine it's future. What else do you buy a GAMING CONSOLE for ? I thought so ... Don't need to go over your null and void point of impulse buying again. 

The increase is only big relative to it's small install base. The increase is actually small. That's like saying the install base increased from 10 to 11 which is by 10%. In other words the sales is still not to healthy levels even in comparison to gamecube so SM3DW IS A LOW QUALITY TITLE

I think I'm done here for the most part. 



fatslob-:O said:
radha said:

Wii had only a handfull of good games and all were from nintendo, most have their counter part lready on the Wii U and look at sales. That cant compare to the donzens of gems in the PS2.

 Just look at Wii u sales, out of the 100 million Wii owners only 5% have cares about the Wii U library, casuals only cared about wii sports, PS2 had a miriad of reason to buy the console.

@Bold I disagree with this. If they truly only cared about wii sports then why does the WII have more 5+ million software sales compared to the PS360 ? 

Exactly, with only few good games, nintendo fans devored the offer, had there been more good options, then there would have been less million sellers



dd if = /dev/brain | tail -f | grep games | nc -lnvvp 80

Hey Listen!

https://archive.org/details/kohina_radio_music_collection

radha said:
fatslob-:O said:
radha said:

Wii had only a handfull of good games and all were from nintendo, most have their counter part lready on the Wii U and look at sales. That cant compare to the donzens of gems in the PS2.

 Just look at Wii u sales, out of the 100 million Wii owners only 5% have cares about the Wii U library, casuals only cared about wii sports, PS2 had a miriad of reason to buy the console.

@Bold I disagree with this. If they truly only cared about wii sports then why does the WII have more 5+ million software sales compared to the PS360 ? 

Exactly, with only few good games, nintendo fans devored the offer, had there been more good options, then there would have been less million sellers

The PS360 has even less so what are you going on about ? 



Around the Network

So you guys hear about this new Mario game that's getting universal praise and is the highest rated 'next-gen' game out on the market? This just in: everyone got it all wrong, the game's in fact not good at all! Such terrible low quality! For shame!



Nintendo Network ID: Cheebee   3DS Code: 2320 - 6113 - 9046

 

fatslob-:O said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

It’s rather amusing. You’re asking me to provide statistics, claiming my views are incorrect yet you have absolutely nothing to back up your opinion which in fact is just an opinion; however an article I found showed that in 1998 (it’s obviously gotten worse) showed that impulse buying contributed to $4Billion in North America alone. http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20130712/MONEY01/307120006/ The Wii being the “hot item” for a few years…. Well, you get the picture. Please provide any other system where a game with a universal rating of 5 that garnered multi millions in sales, for any other system…..oh wait, you cant! You can’t because it did not exist prior to the Wii. You’re also falsely grouping everyone together. The masses are divided into groups and prior to the Wii, the soccer mom “was not” buying the console for herself. This type of demographic did not really exist. Your also forgetting a lot of shovel ware was being moved off the shelves when the Wii was introduced. The system itself was a phenomenon and people were “impulsively buying” any piece of software from what they could get their hands on, especially during the holidays, the shelves were bare. Did you not visit the stores during the first 2 years of it’s existence?  Instead of claiming I’m being disingenuous, back up your opinion please.

@Bold Oh but I absolutely do have data to back up my claim. Where's your end of the bargain ? I simply asked where do you have data claiming that the masses actually look for reviews ? I refuted your incorrect claim that the masses will purchase a game based off of review scores simply because there are distortions of game sales everywhere else around the market. If a survey is 10 or so years old then it holds no relevance to representing anything so you pretty much shot yourself in the foot on this one. Just 4 billion dollars ? That's actually small in comparison to the rest of the population.If we assume that it got 10x worse (That's being generous.) , it's still a small amount.

Didn't your data above you say that impulse buying accounts for very little of the sales that happen ? If anything the data above you just furthers against your point that the masses will just go on any impulse buying spree. It sounds like you made a poorly thought out post on your part. 

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Yes we are biased. A good game is one that can provide a rich experience and enjoyment, however, that doesn’t mean that I would recommend Dark Souls for my 7 year old daughter or for my mom because they would not enjoy the experience. Due to my gaming experience I have the ability to discern what someone would enjoy, its simple psychology that you can apply when you’re knowledgeable with games. The rest of your response is absolute nonsense and at this point I believe you are just grasping at straws in order to keep it going. You talk about the market yet, you do not go into how it changes. Take a brief look at the history of Carnival games when the “impulse buying “ stopped and the Wii was no longer a hot commodity (New carnival games only moved 540,000 copies).
What job I use an analogy for is irrelevant. As stated previously, for some people “A GAME IS AN INVESTMENT”. This holds true especially if the consumer is on an income that only allows a limited number of purchases.  The gamer vote is also more relevant as the game will continue purchasing down the road where the soccer mom wont. Companies loose money due to this or have terrible sales such as described above.

@Bold If it was truly nonsense then why didn't you go about challenging it then ? The market is based off of human nature if you hadn't noticed. Much like humans, the market is always finding a better way to strive towards better products so the market is clearly the better way of telling where what the better product is. The "experienced gamers" votes are essentially just as equal as the rest of the market so none of them takes precedence over another. The new carnival games probably isn't a "better" product according to the market so why should they buy it ? If the gamer vote was truly more relevant then why is the gaming market not doing so hot ? Why are we gonna suffer a decrease in game sales ? Why are we going into a new generation of contraction ? How do you know that the WII was an artificial growth if there is literally no one willing to take up the job of getting them back ? Nintendo as well as the rest of the gaming industry is contracting simply because they are refusing to get them back. YOU WOULD HAVE BEING RIGHT HAD THERE BEING A WII 2 BUT INSTEAD WERE LEFT WITH A GAMECUBE 2. 

IN THE END YOUR LEFT WITH THE NULL AND VOID POINT THAT THE WII WAS CREATED DUE TO IMPULSE.

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Again as describe previously, that statement is incorrect. The value of the Wii was the motion control and the ease of use. In this case the console itself and its design was the significant contributor to the success of it’s games. Impulse buying as stated early played a major factor in games that were quite terrible selling overly well which when he hype died down, so did the shovel ware sales. I do not believe you have clearly read my responses. I never argued that software does not sell hardware. You seem to digress from the actual debate quite often. The masses do not know what the Wii U is, hell there were articles where employees of stores did not know the difference. The Wii U has been dead for quite some time and it will take more than Mario to get the heart beat going. For a console to increase its user base by 13% in two weeks since Mario’s release means thatit’s moving console and by your numbers is not a low quality title

@Bold Again you keep forgetting that "software sells hardware". No matter how well designed the console is, it is going to be the GAMES that determine it's future. What else do you buy a GAMING CONSOLE for ? I thought so ... Don't need to go over your null and void point of impulse buying again. 

The increase is only big relative to it's small install base. The increase is actually small. That's like saying the install base increased from 10 to 11 which is by 10%. In other words the sales is still not to healthy levels even in comparison to gamecube so SM3DW IS A LOW QUALITY TITLE

I think I'm done here for the most part. 


You didn't refute anything. You just babbled and diverge from the actual topic and start going on about something else when you cannot refute my statements. It seems to be a trend in your posts. I provided you data with the impulse shopping, and showed you that besides the Wii, low rated games match sales. You were not able to provided one single refernce whatsoever to any of your claims. $4 Billion (approx 6 Billion today) 15 years ago was significant and yes I assume it probably has increased dramtically Some sources claim 50% https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/912, others estimate $38 Billion yearly http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/impulse/201312/splurchase and this is not on a global aspect.Unlike you I can see here all day and provide you with references. You obviously read the article incorrectly as no where did it say "impulse buying accounts for very little" Lying does not make your argument credible! Also you state you have data to back up your claims? Well where the hell is it?


Again please thoroughly read my responses. I did challenge your response and called out where I believe you were innacurate. Instead of properly answering any of my questions you attempt to drown it out with questions of your own. Your reasoning about the market makes absolutely no sense and I am beggining to think your account is either purely for trolling or else you truly have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. You want data for my argument regarding reviews and there relation to sales, well go look through metacritic or IGN and then go into the VGC database and look through sales. Majority of the time with the odd instance) reviews reflect sales.  Never did I state a purchase is greater than the other ( a sale is a sale) , you decided to add that on your own and make those claims however as I advised earlier the opinion to review a game and recommend is greater than that of a casual/soccer mom and I'm not going to regurgitate the reasoning as you can go back through my previous arguments.  Your incredibly naive if you believe "the market" decided that Carnival Games was of better quality than New Carnival games. The fact of the matter is which the majority will agree or as you call "the masses" that Wii began to fall from grace after 2010. As I stated the hype was gone and the impulse shovel ware buys died like the Dinosaurs. Due to the fact that the "masses" would agree with me, if we once again go by your logic, that means your wrong! Plain and simple. You have also yet to provide a game on any different console with a universal low rating that managed to sell in the same fashion as carnival games. Just so you know.....BOLDING WITH CAPS MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT! YOUR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT!!!!

Honest to god I'm suprised you were not beaten as a child. Seriously, did I ever argue that games do not sell consoles? No. However, in the case of the Wii, the console itself CONTRIBUTED to the success of it's games due to it's unique style. There were quality games that propelled it to 100mill sales but like I've stated numerous times already, due to the unique style of the console, shovelware for the first time was able to sell at the level it did those first few years.
500,000 sales since Mario's release on a console that had sold 800-900K or so since Janaury is significant therefore destroys your argument of SM3DW being a low quality title.

Yes you should be done, before you further embarass yourself.



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

You didn't refute anything. You just babbled and diverge from the actual topic and start going on about something else when you cannot refute my statements. It seems to be a trend in your posts. I provided you data with the impulse shopping, and showed you that besides the Wii, low rated games match sales. You were not able to provided one single refernce whatsoever to any of your claims. $4 Billion (approx 6 Billion today) 15 years ago was significant and yes I assume it probably has increased dramtically Some sources claim 50% https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/912, others estimate $38 Billion yearly http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/impulse/201312/splurchase and this is not on a global aspect.Unlike you I can see here all day and provide you with references. You obviously read the article incorrectly as no where did it say "impulse buying accounts for very little" Lying does not make your argument credible! Also you state you have data to back up your claims? Well where the hell is it?

Your the one babbling here. 40 bilion dollars upon the whole population of roughly 300 million is actually small. That's like $120 and you don't even know if it's attributed to game purchases either so your total point is null and void for the most part and while looking idiotic at the same time. DO THE MATH. Using worthless points do not make your arguments strong. As for me backing up my data you can clearly go look at the game sales. GTA V and the TLOU have the same reviewer quality but guess what ? Game sales paint a different picture as to who sees quality in the game. The market in general sees the experienced gamer and the masses the same thing so you really can't count them out because all votes are essentially the same. Why did TLOU not get equally close sales to GTA V ? It's really clear that the masses just think that GTA V is the vastly superior game. It's obvious that your idea of the masses impulse buying is really stupid. 

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Again please thoroughly read my responses. I did challenge your response and called out where I believe you were innacurate. Instead of properly answering any of my questions you attempt to drown it out with questions of your own. Your reasoning about the market makes absolutely no sense and I am beggining to think your account is either purely for trolling or else you truly have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. You want data for my argument regarding reviews and there relation to sales, well go look through metacritic or IGN and then go into the VGC database and look through sales. Majority of the time with the odd instance) reviews reflect sales.  Never did I state a purchase is greater than the other ( a sale is a sale) , you decided to add that on your own and make those claims however as I advised earlier the opinion to review a game and recommend is greater than that of a casual/soccer mom and I'm not going to regurgitate the reasoning as you can go back through my previous arguments.  Your incredibly naive if you believe "the market" decided that Carnival Games was of better quality than New Carnival games. The fact of the matter is which the majority will agree or as you call "the masses" that Wii began to fall from grace after 2010. As I stated the hype was gone and the impulse shovel ware buys died like the Dinosaurs. Due to the fact that the "masses" would agree with me, if we once again go by your logic, that means your wrong! Plain and simple. You have also yet to provide a game on any different console with a universal low rating that managed to sell in the same fashion as carnival games. Just so you know.....BOLDING WITH CAPS MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT! YOUR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT!!!!

Need I remind you that half life or SM3DW comes nowhere NEAR close to GTA V in sales despite the fact that they pretty much have the same quality for the most part. Reviews do not reflect sales and that is reflected by the fact that they don't scale well in comparison to the market. So there goes your other crappy point that review scores = sales. 

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Honest to god I'm suprised you were not beaten as a child. Seriously, did I ever argue that games do not sell consoles? No. However, in the case of the Wii, the console itself CONTRIBUTED to the success of it's games due to it's unique style. There were quality games that propelled it to 100mill sales but like I've stated numerous times already, due to the unique style of the console, shovelware for the first time was able to sell at the level it did those first few years. 
500,000 sales since Mario's release on a console that had sold 800-900K or so since Janaury is significant therefore destroys your argument of SM3DW being a low quality title.

@Bold That's so stupid I'm not even gonna answer to this. 

For a mario title that's pretty pathetic in comparison to other 3D marios. Galaxy 2 was able to pull off a million copies easily at it's first week aligned and that was the seccond lowest selling 3D mario so SM3DW was truly a low quality title. BTW it's first week aligned sales were around 400K so yea it's low quality. 

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Yes you should be done, before you further embarass yourself.

Or before you keep making more crappy points for me to rip apart. Your done here. Just admit that SALES = QUALITY and leave it at that because you clearly ran out of garbage to throw at. 



fatslob-:O said:

For a mario title that's pretty pathetic in comparison to other 3D marios. Galaxy 2 was able to pull off a million copies easily at it's first week aligned and that was the seccond lowest selling 3D mario so SM3DW was truly a low quality title. BTW it's first week aligned sales were around 400K so yea it's low quality. 

Or before you keep making more crappy points for me to rip apart. Your done here. Just admit that SALES = QUALITY and leave it at that because you clearly ran out of garbage to throw at. 

So, you're determining that 3D World is low quality by comparing its debut sales on a console with around a 4m install base to Galaxy 2's debut sales on a console with a then 70m install base?  And you accuse his points of being crappy?  That's rich.



archbrix said:
fatslob-:O said:

For a mario title that's pretty pathetic in comparison to other 3D marios. Galaxy 2 was able to pull off a million copies easily at it's first week aligned and that was the seccond lowest selling 3D mario so SM3DW was truly a low quality title. BTW it's first week aligned sales were around 400K so yea it's low quality. 

Or before you keep making more crappy points for me to rip apart. Your done here. Just admit that SALES = QUALITY and leave it at that because you clearly ran out of garbage to throw at. 

So, you're determining that 3D World is low quality by comparing its debut sales on a console with around a 4m install base to Galaxy 2's debut sales on a console with a then 70m install base?  And you accuse his points of being crappy?  That's rich.

Install base excuse, eh ? The point of a game is supposed to make you buy the god damned console not the other way around.