RedProdigy
NOD fanatic
- Feb 24, 2007
- 425
- 3
{Its not a comeback. Im just stating what appears to be the truth. I would have more luck teaching a monkey to talk. Thats how illogical you are.}
No, I'm not braindead. Far from it actually. And if you actually use your noggin, and I know you can do it, you would see my point.
{By the way, your analogy is childish and has no real substance or relevance. You argue that the wii must be better because it sells more. You are wrong. You cannot base a systems capabilties by how much it sells, or how cheap it is. Again honda vs mercedes. }
How the hell was my analogy childish? There is relevance if you don't have your head up your ass. Also, I hope you like the taste of hypocrisy because it's your turn to twist my words. I never said anything about sales being the basis of a console's capabilities. Since you don't get my analogy, here it is: A hover car is very different from a normal car (think the Wii). The hover car can do things that a normal car could not such as transverse over water. However, a hover car will not be able to handle steep changes in elevation. A normal car would be far superior to a hover car in the mountains. The Wii has motion sensing (which the PS3 doesn't have much of) but lacks in the graphics department (which the PS3 rules in). So what would you rather buy, a hover car or a normal car? The answer is it depends on the person. See, that wasn't so hard.
{The wii remote is not new technology. Its a tv remote used for games. Thats how miyamoto came up with the idea. I like the controller as well, but a controller is one piece of a whole. You cant base how good a car is by its tires. Or its windows. You have to look at the entire machine. }
Oh, I know motion sensing is nothing new. But the Wii is the first console to STANDARDIZE motion sensing. The rest have failed because they were optional and generally didn't work that great. Indeed, the Wiimote IS the center of the Wii and you can't deny that. When you solely look at the Wii's hardware, you're missing the big picture.
{Nintendo has more sales because they are known for having 1. the cheapest systems on the market. This is done by not using the latest technology, they are very basic systems with one main fuction. Family gaming. This means their target audience is very large. 2. Sony on the other hand, does not have a large target audience, its sales are low because its targeting a specific type of group. Do you know anything about marketing at all? The DS is a little less than half the price of the PSP. The PSP targets more mature gamers who are willing to spend more on the system. Hands down the PSP is a more powerful system, but is it as accessable as the DS. No. Sales do not equal power and potential.}
I won't deny points 1 and 2, except I feel "family gaming" is a little constricting. And yes, I do have some knowledge in marketing. I was thinking the PSP was $200 while the DS was $130 ($150?). I haven't looked at their prices recently. I also don't deny that the PSP is the more powerful handheld. It's the truth, isn't it? All I was saying was that the main reason why the DS sold so well was because of the games that had unique controls (aka Touch Generation). It took the DS quite a while to build momentum but once it started rolling, it was nearly unstoppable.
Sony had the opportunity to destroy the DS and claim the gaming market when the DS was suffering from a long post-launch gaming drought. Yet, it didn't and now the DS is printing money when many predicted that the PSP was. I can see a similiar situation with the Wii and PS3. If Sony doesn't prove to us this year why the PS3 totally pwns the Wii (and I'm talking about games), then it may get caught in a pretty bad situation. Of course, Sony may not have to face such challenges. I'm not going to proclaim the fates of the consoles.
No, I'm not braindead. Far from it actually. And if you actually use your noggin, and I know you can do it, you would see my point.
{By the way, your analogy is childish and has no real substance or relevance. You argue that the wii must be better because it sells more. You are wrong. You cannot base a systems capabilties by how much it sells, or how cheap it is. Again honda vs mercedes. }
How the hell was my analogy childish? There is relevance if you don't have your head up your ass. Also, I hope you like the taste of hypocrisy because it's your turn to twist my words. I never said anything about sales being the basis of a console's capabilities. Since you don't get my analogy, here it is: A hover car is very different from a normal car (think the Wii). The hover car can do things that a normal car could not such as transverse over water. However, a hover car will not be able to handle steep changes in elevation. A normal car would be far superior to a hover car in the mountains. The Wii has motion sensing (which the PS3 doesn't have much of) but lacks in the graphics department (which the PS3 rules in). So what would you rather buy, a hover car or a normal car? The answer is it depends on the person. See, that wasn't so hard.
{The wii remote is not new technology. Its a tv remote used for games. Thats how miyamoto came up with the idea. I like the controller as well, but a controller is one piece of a whole. You cant base how good a car is by its tires. Or its windows. You have to look at the entire machine. }
Oh, I know motion sensing is nothing new. But the Wii is the first console to STANDARDIZE motion sensing. The rest have failed because they were optional and generally didn't work that great. Indeed, the Wiimote IS the center of the Wii and you can't deny that. When you solely look at the Wii's hardware, you're missing the big picture.
{Nintendo has more sales because they are known for having 1. the cheapest systems on the market. This is done by not using the latest technology, they are very basic systems with one main fuction. Family gaming. This means their target audience is very large. 2. Sony on the other hand, does not have a large target audience, its sales are low because its targeting a specific type of group. Do you know anything about marketing at all? The DS is a little less than half the price of the PSP. The PSP targets more mature gamers who are willing to spend more on the system. Hands down the PSP is a more powerful system, but is it as accessable as the DS. No. Sales do not equal power and potential.}
I won't deny points 1 and 2, except I feel "family gaming" is a little constricting. And yes, I do have some knowledge in marketing. I was thinking the PSP was $200 while the DS was $130 ($150?). I haven't looked at their prices recently. I also don't deny that the PSP is the more powerful handheld. It's the truth, isn't it? All I was saying was that the main reason why the DS sold so well was because of the games that had unique controls (aka Touch Generation). It took the DS quite a while to build momentum but once it started rolling, it was nearly unstoppable.
Sony had the opportunity to destroy the DS and claim the gaming market when the DS was suffering from a long post-launch gaming drought. Yet, it didn't and now the DS is printing money when many predicted that the PSP was. I can see a similiar situation with the Wii and PS3. If Sony doesn't prove to us this year why the PS3 totally pwns the Wii (and I'm talking about games), then it may get caught in a pretty bad situation. Of course, Sony may not have to face such challenges. I'm not going to proclaim the fates of the consoles.
Last edited:
