NJ5 said:
Well, for example in the part where I say "their previous consoles"? "Their" being "Nintendo's". Is that explicit enough for you? It's also a matter of logic, if I'm making the point that price is not the biggest factor for a console selling well (in the specific case of the Wii), it's natural to use cheaper consoles as potential evidence.
|
NJ5 said: "So why did their previous consoles sell so much worse than the Wii? The same for other previous consoles from other companies."
The 2nd sentence "explicitly" states "from OTHER companies?" Is this just a mirage I see? Or are you going to argue that there is no spoon?When comparing previous generations you must take into account the competition. At one point the PS1 and N64 were the same price! Thus there was competition. You think the PS brand would still be around if the PS1 was $400-500? Even if they had great games they would have lost that generation. You can take the Sega Saturn as evidence of that. Your conclusion is based on a comparison that is completely out of context (cross generation rather than 1 generation at a time). The evidence in each generation tells us otherwise. The Neo Geo failed despite being lightyears ahead of the competition in quality & technology. The Saturn failed even though it had great games (some of the best games of the generation while it was supported). The PS3 is failing despite its vast brand recognition. What is the common thread between all these consoles? They were all great systems that priced themselves out of competition right out of the gate.
Price is a huge, underestimated and understated, factor in all venues of business not just games (with exception to the services sector & monopolies). If this werent true then China would be out of business and everyone would be driving a Jaguar.







