albionus said:
|
I don't know about that.. Whens the last time you paid for porn? God bless the internet.
albionus said:
|
I don't know about that.. Whens the last time you paid for porn? God bless the internet.
elendar said:
I don't know about that.. Whens the last time you paid for porn? God bless the internet. |
I would think that Wii has a better chance at losing marketshare to the 360 than the PS3. Seeing as how the games that don't sell well on the Wii generally sell great on the 360 (Spiderman 30).
Those examples of games that he was watching were ridiculous... Smackdown??? CMON. That is Madden all over again. All that it will prove is that the Wii has a more casual audience... Guitar Hero to a lesser extent, because everyone should know that the 360 is getting the better version of the game. I would pick the 360 version too.
Games that I am watching? ZACK AND WIKI!!!!
Hmmm... Lets see if I can get his points straight.
*Wii is overrated because it sells a lot of systems but not a lot of games.
*Wii only has terrible games except a handful of quality games that are all made by nintendo, which oddly sell extremely well.
*ps3 is like the 360 in that they're hardcore and will buy a lot of the quality games 3rd parties are offering them.
*The Wii's userbase isn't as hardcore as it's competition because they don't buy the admittedly crappy 3rd party games being released for it. Even though quality 1st party games sell really well.
Are people really blind or something? How can someone make all of those points and not see the problems in logic? So the wii is overrated and the userbase is not hardcore, all because they aren't wasting they're money on terrible 3rd party releases when they have better alternatives? He needs to analyze his own words before trying to analyze the video game market.
To sum it up, "Wii is a fad". nothing new here.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Brawl FC: 0473-7449-8088
In a way, he makes me LAWL.
It seemed his whole argument was based on "I think that PS3>Wii". The arguments wasn't aweful per say, but I think he lacks experience.
While I can't say Wii games do better then PS3 games, the PS3 isn't moving software either. Very few games sell over 1million, or 500k for that matter. Many get on the top selling charts and then fall off next week. There have been some Wii games that have lived longer then a week. Not many, but some, which is better then Sony. Of course, I don't have the numbers in front of me, so saying one does better then the other is more my recollection.
I really don't see PS3 big in 08. Even at 400$, it doesn't have the hype orgame library to support it. Maybe it will do a bit better. Heck, MAYBDE it could beat out the 360, but it won't be the #1 console for sure.
Is it just me or was his entire argument based around "Wii games suck and always will suck, PS3 games are going to get real good".
Its based around opinion, not analysis.

Anyalysts are merely an instrument of financial institutions to manipulate public opinion. If you accept that fact, all their statements make sense.
The real, actionable information is passed in private and is unavailable to the general public.