Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
JWeinCom said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
| JWeinCom said:
Uhhhhhh... what does that mean? The appeal of every game is subjective.
It means you cannot make assupmptions based on popular casual franchises.
Why not exactly? Obviously it's extrapolating from the data, but in the lack of hard data, that's what you do. If we can't judge based on sales of games then what makes you so sure that the XBox 360 marketshare was taken from Sony?
Addressed above
Not really. You just said no with no reason why.
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Instead, I use the 5th (30 mill) and 6th (20 mill) generations and compare that against the Wii (100 mill). That's at the very least 50 million non-gamers as rough low estimate.
|
You're right it doesn't. All it tells us that it was an increase in Nintendo's Marketshare. But in hindsight, it really doesn't matter what you or I call them.
Well, actually it does, because your argument is based on the idea that Nintendo's market share came exclusively from non-gamers, so that's relevant.
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Instead, I use the 6th (20 mill) generations and compare that against the XBox 360 (80 mill). That's at the very least 60 million non-gamers as rough low estimate.
|
Applying the same logic to the XBox 360 as you did to the Wii (that is that we compare a system's current gen to last gen and every new owner is a non gamer). Then you get that the XBox 360 had 60 million non-gamers. Of course, that doesn't work, but it doesn't work with the Wii either.
that can't count by the rules you set up.
We can only use information we have, this is the point of being objective.
The data is objective. Your conclusion is subjective. The data does not state that 50 million people were non-gamers. The data states 50 million people did not previously own a Nintendo console. Big difference.
I can agree to this. However, its simply a change of terms not a change of meaning. The increase in marketshare can be attritbuted to a change in the adressal of markets
Uhhhhhhhh... duh? Of course if a company has a surge of new customers it came from outside of their existing sales base (or market). Your argument is based on what markets exactly were addressed.
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Instead, I use the 5th (30 mill) and 6th (20 mill) generations and compare that against the Wii (100 mill). That's at the very least 50 million non-gamers as rough low estimate.
|
Yeah... ya did. Nongamer-outlier. Outlier- someone not included in your data set. You identified anyone out of the 30-50 million N64 cube range as an non-gamer, and excluded them from the market. Hence, outlier.
Technically, you consider Non-Gamer as outlier, I never mentioned it.
Not explicitly, no, but your posts make it clear you put them outside of the "gaming market". So it they lie outside the gaming market, they're outliers.
Right back at ya slick.
|
|
Please, explain to me why we can take the idea that none of the 50 million "non-gamers" were PS2 gamers were non-gamers without a citation, but the claim that they were needs citation :)
You have no more evidence to show than I do. And it's fine to have different interpretations of the data. It's not fine to hold me to a standard that you don't hold yourself to. So, yeah. Rigged game.
|
Every single one of my claims are backed up by verifiable evidence.
Oh, cool. Is it like, secret verifiable evidence or something? Cause you only showed one example of any sort of data which you admitted didn't justify your conclusion.
Upon further inspection, I realize that the classification of gamer and non gamer is unsubstantiated and frankly subjective, so I've removed it from my argument. However, it doesn't change my argument in the slightest, just the terms. The 5th,6th, and 8th gen failures were from addressing the wrong market, a market that favors MS and Sony more because they aren't game development studios and the wider demographic. 7th gen, has shown the performance of Nintendo's home console in a market that the other two does not address. Thus, I surmise that Nintendo is incompatible with the current home console market, and show that the characteristics of this market are the case why.
Probably my last post on this topic. That's your theory, and if it is, that's fine. If that's your interpetation of the situation, you're entited to that, but you haven't provided anything really to back it up.
The idea that casual gaming started with the Wii is inaccurate. Before the Wii, we had Guitar Hero, Dance Dance Revolution, Eye Toy Play, Donkey Konga, Mario Party, and Mario Kart. We had tetris long before we had Brain Age. The argument that Wind Waker was designed to appeal to the same Market as Halo is a bit iffy, and the idea that Nintendo's candy colored Gamecube controller was designed as an attempt to woo GTA fans is a little puzzling as well. Nintendo has always tried to appeal to a very broad demographic.
By the same token, casual gamers have always been a part of the market. While "the appeal of games is subjective" we can probably agree that 2 million copies of finding Nemo on PS2 were not sold to hardcore gamers. Nor did the Incredibles sell 2 million. Sing It Highschool Musical, we can assume, was targeting young girls who were most likely not "hardcore gamers" and it sold 1.5 million copies. I'm assuming 3.5 million copies of Rugrats in Paris on the PS1 weren't sold within the "gaming market" you described. Add in the aforementioned Guitar Hero, the success of the Crash Bandicoot series (if that and Mario don't share a fanbase, then I don't know who does), the Playstation Move, the Eye Toy, Skylanders, and so on, there is clear evidence to suggest that there is a large swath of gamers that have always been in the market that were left out of your "gaming market".
And that's really where your argument falls apart. The idea that the gamers who bought the Wii were some bizarre alien species who came to the Earth briefly, bought a Wii, and then flew away never to game again. This segment of the market (with kids playing Mario, adults playing Tetris, and college student jamming on plastic guitars) always existed. Nintendo expanded this market in the same way that Sony and Microsoft expanded the Call of Duty market. The part of the market that Nintendo succeeded in is a part of the gaming market, and has been since before Sony entered the scene, and during the PS1/2 era.
As for Nintendo trying to compete with Microsoft and Sony with the Wii U, that's again a claim that doesn't work. Obviously, they're not ignoring that market entirely with games like Bayonetta, and Devil's third, and Wonderful 101, but far more of their output has been focused on the same market they addressed on the Wii. Wii Sports Club, Wii Fit U, Nintendo Land, NSMB Wii, Super Mario 3D World, Mario Kart 8, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Game and Wario, Lego City Undercover, Captain Toad, Wii Party U, etc. Nintendo is trying to appeal to same market they always have.
As for why Nintendo isn't succeeding, that's something you couldn't squeeze into about 5 paragraphs. Third party relationships are definitely a part of it, but so are software delays, Nintendo's insistence on a small box (literally), the overestimated appeal of games like Nintendoland, a failure to properly explain the value of the Gamepad, and so on. It's a vastly more complex argument than you're trying to make, and it's not one that I care to make now. Your overly simplistic analysis of the industry's past and present renders any conclusions you've drawn largely worthless.
|
