fazz said: Yes, they are competing directly, no matter the functionality, power or target audience. If it was like you said, the PS2 didn't compete with the GC and Xbox, because they had quite a difference in power, target audience and functionality. Or the 360 and PS3 are not competing because Sony targets the Sony fans, and MS targets... well, like everyone.

The PS2/XBOX/GC where all direct competitors , this is evident in the way that the PS2 hindered the XBOX's/GC's sales performance And as for your bolded point  , LOL. /thread you win. 

 

me, because they are all game systems, released at the same period.....

it doesn't mean the one does not compete just because people prefer it!!

TheRealMafoo said: thekitchensink said: /thread Can we get a one hour ban on everyone who does this crap? I see it more and more these days. Sorry, but your opinion does not end the discussion. It's amazing how arrogant some people seem to be.

Look at the post directly above yours.  If the Wii isn't competing directly, then neither was the PS2.  They're both the weakest, graphically, and they both were the shovelware machines that casual gamers bought.  Unless you want to argue that it was, in fact, the Xbox that won the last generation, we have nothing to even talk about.

In regard to your post directly above mine, the reason fanboys argue over PS360 is because they have similar power and online capabilities.  That's why, to justify their purchase to themselves, they argue over which version of GTAIV has slightly less pop-in or if XBL is worth paying for.  Yes, the Wii is weaker and has an inferior online system, but the games that take advantage of it CAN'T be done on other systems, thus they don't appear there, and can't be argued about.  If Nintendo was taking their new approach and enticing the casual gamer on a system that was powerful enough to get GTAIV, I guarantee you'd be getting PS3v360vSuperWii graphics comparisons all across the board.

Hamburgers are a completely different class of meal from a fine dinner at Swiss Chalet, but both still compete for the dollars of hungry people.

My point is, just because something offers a different experience in NO WAY means that it's not directly competing. 

 

Imperial said: fazz said: Yes, they are competing directly, no matter the functionality, power or target audience. If it was like you said, the PS2 didn't compete with the GC and Xbox, because they had quite a difference in power, target audience and functionality. Or the 360 and PS3 are not competing because Sony targets the Sony fans, and MS targets... well, like everyone. The PS2/XBOX/GC where all direct competitors , this is evident in the way that the PS2 hindered the XBOX's/GC's sales performance And as for your bolded point , LOL. /thread you win.

And the wii doesn't hinder ps3/360s sales? Look at japan. Do you think the ps3 would have sold such a small amount if the wii wasn't there?

TheRealMafoo said: The_vagabond7 said: If say a parent goes to Best buy thinking "I'm going to buy a videogame console for my 17 year old" I guarantee you if a parent os going to drop 300-500 on a console for there 17 year old son, then know exactly what he wants. Also, if they get the wrong one, it's going back for the right one (unless there are other reasons they bought it). That scenario is so small, that a gift is being purchased, and the purchaser has no clue what to get. There is a reason these boards are filled with PS3 vs 360 fanboy arguments all day long, and not 360 vs Wii, or PS3 vs Wii arguments. The reason is they are not the same audience. To use the car analogy someone posted above. If you got to a BMW forum, you will not see many BMW Vs. Honda threads. You might see a BMW vs. Jaguar, or BMW vs. Mercedes article however. That's not to say Honda makes a bad car (they don't), it's just because they are not competing for the same dollar. No one who bought a BMW over a Honda feels they need to justify there purchase, because it was just an obvious choice for them. Same with Wii or HD console buyers.

The reason you see more PS3 vs 360 arguements on this forum is for two reasons. Firstly the two consoles are extremely similar in graphical proweess and way ahead of the Wii. The two can often trade off which version looks better, and fanboys will bicker about that until the cows come home. The Wii is never really mentioned because it is not anywhere near as good at pushing sparklies on the screen.

The other reason is fanboys whine incessantly whenever the Wii is brought into the arguements. People will go on and on about which console is winning, or which one is better. Then someone points out how the Wii is winning in some way and everyone whines their asses off that the Wii shouldn't be brought up because of course it wins. The conversation doesn't happen because only the most rabid fanboys think there is even an outside shot of Nintendo losing this race.

Your car analogy is also seriously flawed. There is not a gigantic market around building accesories specifically for those cars. There is a huge market for making video games however. The battle of the consoles is not entirely at the consumer level. The war is just as much about convincing third party developers they want to make games for your system. Nintendo has shown exactly what happens when you fail in that aspect.

TheRealMafoo said: The_vagabond7 said: If say a parent goes to Best buy thinking "I'm going to buy a videogame console for my 17 year old" I guarantee you if a parent os going to drop 300-500 on a console for there 17 year old son, then know exactly what he wants. Also, if they get the wrong one, it's going back for the right one (unless there are other reasons they bought it). That scenario is so small, that a gift is being purchased, and the purchaser has no clue what to get. There is a reason these boards are filled with PS3 vs 360 fanboy arguments all day long, and not 360 vs Wii, or PS3 vs Wii arguments. The reason is they are not the same audience. To use the car analogy someone posted above. If you got to a BMW forum, you will not see many BMW Vs. Honda threads. You might see a BMW vs. Jaguar, or BMW vs. Mercedes article however. That's not to say Honda makes a bad car (they don't), it's just because they are not competing for the same dollar. No one who bought a BMW over a Honda feels they need to justify there purchase, because it was just an obvious choice for them. Same with Wii or HD console buyers.

 Great way to single out one thing you can argue with in that post while deleting everything else.And I would still disagree with that point. So what if they know exactly what their son wants? How is that relevant? That's just changing the scenario so that it's a moot point. If his son wants a wii, what does that prove? If he wants a PS3 what does that prove? Nada. The point of that isn't "what does the son want" it's "how does the consumer view the situation". And this board IS filled with tons of PS3 vs wii arguements, so is every message board.

 

Gnizmo said: *SNIP* Cell phones do not get major support from third party developers, but consoles do. Theere are only so many developent resources that can be thrown around to make games, and those resources are being divided between the Wii, DS, PSP, 360, and PS3. The goal of 3 of those consoles is purely to get big name games on their system to help sell software. So long as the Wii and DS can steal games away from the there is direct competition.

  What are you talking about , mobile gaming is experience a massive amount of growth at the moment , with Ipod games , Xna game on the Zune , Nokia re-introducing the N-Gage , EA would release GTA IV on the mobile if they had rights to the game. The main resoun a developer won't resource for a platform isn't because of a lack of resources , it's because the cost and time put into making the software for the platform won't be worth the financial return. It's developing games for platforms that enable developers to attain more resources and experience growth at a faster pace. Your post makes it sound like there's a limited number of people able to develop gams like it some special skill or something.  You call it "Stealing games" I call it developers choosing a more financialy viable route , I don't think the GoW developers would find it worth making GoW2 exclusive to the Wii neither would the makers of CoD4 find it worthwhile making CoD5 an exclsuvie Wii game. Like  I said before  THERE IS COMPETITION ( PLEASE READ FOR f**K SAKE)  , there just isn't direct competition. 

 

sc94597 said: Imperial said: fazz said: Yes, they are competing directly, no matter the functionality, power or target audience. If it was like you said, the PS2 didn't compete with the GC and Xbox, because they had quite a difference in power, target audience and functionality. Or the 360 and PS3 are not competing because Sony targets the Sony fans, and MS targets... well, like everyone. The PS2/XBOX/GC where all direct competitors , this is evident in the way that the PS2 hindered the XBOX's/GC's sales performance And as for your bolded point , LOL. /thread you win.   And the wii doesn't hinder ps3/360s sales? Look at japan. Do you think the ps3 would have sold such a small amount if the wii wasn't there?

     Compare the PS3's software support to the PS2's or even the 360's. The Japaneese are embracing the PS3 well because Sony isn't embracing the japanese.
Yes we have MGS4 and Final Fantasy next year but what else is there for the japaneese ? 

 

Compa

Imperial said: sc94597 said: Imperial said: fazz said: Yes, they are competing directly, no matter the functionality, power or target audience. If it was like you said, the PS2 didn't compete with the GC and Xbox, because they had quite a difference in power, target audience and functionality. Or the 360 and PS3 are not competing because Sony targets the Sony fans, and MS targets... well, like everyone. The PS2/XBOX/GC where all direct competitors , this is evident in the way that the PS2 hindered the XBOX's/GC's sales performance And as for your bolded point , LOL. /thread you win.   And the wii doesn't hinder ps3/360s sales? Look at japan. Do you think the ps3 would have sold such a small amount if the wii wasn't there? Compare the PS3's software support to the PS2's or even the 360's. The Japaneese are embracing the PS3 well because Sony isn't embracing the japanese. Yes we have MGS4 and Final Fantasy next year but what else is there for the japaneese ?   Compa

Yeah that's true because the japanese always embrace the console with the most japanese games (wii) which means it competes with the ps3 in japan. If the wii wasn't there then the console that is most japanese would be the ps3 and they would buy it.

 

Ok, so you say they are competing, but they aren't direct competitors. That seems to be the gist of the difference in opinion.

What in your mind is directly competing? I could say the PS3 and 360 aren't directly competing because the PS3 acts as a blu-ray player as well thusly targeting an additional audience that the 360 isn't. It would be silly, but it could be done, and argued that PS3 sales are boosted by people buying blu-ray players.

What in your mind would mean directly competing? If one takes sales from the other and can be directly correlated as such (rather than in a vague abstract way in which food competes with videogame systems because they both require money) which is obvious that the wii does take, and they compete directly for shelf space (which an Iphone doesn't compete for shelf space with a PSP), and they compete for the attention of 3rd party companies, and compete for consumer attention. The differences in which they are not competing are minuscule compared to the numbers of ways they are competing.