Bodhesatva said:
Lord N said:
Bodhesatva said:
Then answer the other questions, please. Do you agree that, as you put it, the "huge library of games that covered every genre" was a critical component of the PS2's overwhelming success, and that a large portion of the people chose that particular console because of this component? |
Had you been paying attention, you'd see that they've already been answered. Yes, the games were a critical component, but that's really just stating the obvious, and the games were certainly no more critical a component than were the others. Had the PS2 released at a price of say, $500, then that would take away the affordability, which would have led to lower hardware sales regardless of what games were on it. It would have also rendered the PS2's DVD playback irrelevant as a DVD player could be had for $300. When a console sells as well as the PS2, it's never just one thing. It's because of a multitude of reasons.
|
I have been paying quite close attention, but your position is so deliberately convoluted that I'm specifically and directly forcing you to explicate its entirety. First, I think most would disagree with your assessment that all factors were equally important, and would instead argue that the games library was easily the most significant factor in the PS2's success. The easiest example, again, is that most would say "a huge library of games that covered every genre" was more critical to the PS2's success than DVD playback. In fact, I think the suggestion that these were equally important factors in the system's success borders on ludicrous, and is rather soundly rebutted by the Xbox's dismal sales in comparison. And by the PS1's success, I might add. The PS1 sold only 10-15 percent worse than the PS2: how do you explain that? But more importantly, the entire argument is moot. Regardless of how you place the significance of these factors, you agree that the games assisted in selling the console, yes? You agree that of these multitude of reasons, games are one. As Grand Theft Auto was quite easily the best selling franchise in the history of the PS2, it would be a keystone franchise, and thus it follows that GTA was an important selling point for the system, too. Therefore, I assume you agree that one of the reasons the PS2 sold was Grand Theft Auto. Since no one was arguing that GTA was the exclusive reason the PS2 sold, you're simply beating a straw man to death. |
First of all, I never stated any factor as being more important than another. What I said is that they are all responsible for its sales, which they are. DVD playback didn't work out so well for the Xbox because 1) people had to pay extra for an add-on, and 2) DVD players had become affordable. DVD playback was a big reason the PS2 sold well, especially during its first year when there was hardly anything worth playing, and especially for people in Japan and Europe, for many of whom it was their very first DVD player. I know you don't think they were buying the thing in droves to play Fantavision.
If you want to talk about software being the most important factor, then that can be soundly rebutted by the fact that the 360 has sold truckloads of software, yet has only managed to sell well in one region while being far behind the Wii and only slightly ahead of the PS3 in worldwide hardware sales since the latter two consoles launched. On the other hand, you have the PSP, whose software sales are nothing to write home about, yet it has strong hardware sales in all regions. That alone should tell you that there are other factors to consider.
I never said that anyone argued that GTA was the exclusive reason the PS2 sold, now did I? My point is that it sold well because it was released on a system that was selling well long before it even existed, just like all of the other PS2 games that sold well. Again, had you been paying attention, you'd have realised this, since what I quoted said "MS knows that GTA is the game that gave the PS2 so much success", and that's what I was arguing against. My initial post had to do with this fact and the fact that GTAIV isn't going to matter as much to the 360(or the PS3 for that matter) for reasons I've already given.
If anyone's beating anything to death, it's you. You're the one arguing against points that I didn't make, ignoring others that I did make because they don't bolster your points(such as the affordability of the console and the fact that it was already selling well before there ever was a GTA), reading too far into things I've said and twisting them around, and bringing things up that have nothing to do with anything I've said. In any event, I'm done here. All I did was make one simple point which you convoluted into an argument that is nigh irrelevant regarding anything I've said. Some people on this site get way too much of a hard on arguing about video games. You'd swear we were talking about the economy or the environment.
