"Didn't they say that..."

I probably explained this the wrong way, but my point was if you say this every year and most people keep choosing other content year after year it probably isn't a valid statement. Capitalism tends to sort things pretty quickly. People aren't idiots. They don't like wasting their money, and they certainly wouldn't waste it year after year after year. That 2007 statement just looks ludicrous to me because there is no wide-spread objective measure of game quality in this industry, and there never has been frankly simply because reviews are dependent on the talent of the reviewers as gamers, as opposed to movie reviewers, music reviewers or book reviewers.

The vast majority of people don't give a damn what I or some other guy on the internet says, or even what meta-critic says about some lineup of games and so those services work as echo chambers for people with a certain skill-level - its not an affirmation of near universal quality that everyone can enjoy. Most people just ask their friends, rent titles first, or look at the game box.

If you accept that as how most purchasing decisions are made, then the Wii attach rate and X360 attach rates make more sense. Through September 2009, Wii SW / Wii System was 7.7/system, while X360 SW / X360 System was 8.7/system. You can say alot of the Wii sw is from Wii Sports. But X360 has had numerous sw bundled too. If you factor that in you get ~6.9 Wii games/system against ~8.4 X360 games/system. Factor in the years on the market - three for Wii, and four X360 and the game purchasing rate for Wii/year is actually higher than on X360/year. 8.4/4 = 2.1 games per year, 7/3 = 2.3 games per year - both excluding bundles and those ratios are with the Wii software market being larger.

Cheebee said: Ah look at 'em all go at each other, this'll be fun to watch.

Lol@ the bans.

Before everyone jumped down TheSource's throat, they could have explained what they took "biggest year in history" to mean.  I also took it to mean sales.  In which case he's right, the Wii's lineup has been far "bigger".  Then we have the quality arguments...oy vay.  You can love you 360 games all you want, that doesn't mean most people will agree.  

BoleroOfFire said: Cheebee said: Ah look at 'em all go at each other, this'll be fun to watch. Lol@ the bans. Before everyone jumped down TheSource's throat, they could have explained what they took "biggest year in history" to mean.  I also took it to mean sales.  In which case he's right, the Wii's lineup has been far "bigger".  Then we have the quality arguments...oy vay.  You can love you 360 games all you want, that doesn't mean most people will agree.

Nobody said anything about being bigger than the Wii. He said "2010 will be the Biggest Year in Xbox History"

"Didn't they say that..."

I probably explained this the wrong way, but my point was if you say this every year and most people keep choosing other content year after year it probably isn't a valid statement. Capitalism tends to sort things pretty quickly. People aren't idiots. They don't like wasting their money, and they certainly wouldn't waste it year after year after year. That 2007 statement just looks ludicrous to me because there is no wide-spread objective measure of game quality in this industry, and there never has been frankly simply because reviews are dependent on the talent of the reviewers as gamers, as opposed to movie reviewers, music reviewers or book reviewers.

The vast majority of people don't give a damn what I or some other guy on the internet says, or even what meta-critic says about some lineup of games and so those services work as echo chambers for people with a certain skill-level - its not an affirmation of near universal quality that everyone can enjoy. Most people just ask their friends, rent titles first, or look at the game box.

If you accept that as how most purchasing decisions are made, then the Wii attach rate and X360 attach rates make more sense. Through September 2009, Wii SW / Wii System was 7.7/system, while X360 SW / X360 System was 8.7/system. You can say alot of the Wii sw is from Wii Sports. But X360 has had numerous sw bundled too. If you factor that in you get ~6.9 Wii games/system against ~8.4 X360 games/system. Factor in the years on the market - three for Wii, and four X360 and the game purchasing rate for Wii/year is actually higher than on X360/year. 8.4/4 = 2.1 games per year, 7/3 = 2.3 games per year - both excluding bundles and those ratios are with the Wii software market being larger.

nathantay said: BoleroOfFire said: Cheebee said: Ah look at 'em all go at each other, this'll be fun to watch. Lol@ the bans. Before everyone jumped down TheSource's throat, they could have explained what they took "biggest year in history" to mean.  I also took it to mean sales.  In which case he's right, the Wii's lineup has been far "bigger".  Then we have the quality arguments...oy vay.  You can love you 360 games all you want, that doesn't mean most people will agree.   Nobody said anything about being bigger than the Wii. He said "2010 will be the Biggest Year in Xbox History"

TheSource's first post referenced a claim that Xbox had the "best lineup of all time" in 2007.  That includes the Wii.  I took it as this: it was PR in 2007, it's just PR in 2010.  It could be the Xbox's biggest year but it's not guaranteed just because Microsoft stated it.  

Didn't they say in 2007 that they had the best gaming lineup of all time? Then they were essentially beaten by Wii Play, Mario Galaxy, Guitar Hero III, and Mario & Sonic...