My god man, really? This is the last time I'm responding to you. This site is one of many stops for me before bed, both because I enjoy gaming and have to keep tabs on news and trends in the industry. What are you getting out of this besides being told that you're wrong and then making a counter argument from an incomplete knowledge of the facts?Shepard said:Less common is not the same as non existent.jthm said:more stuff
True, but if Microsoft and Sony can attract the "hardcore gamers" to their motion controls and make good "hardcore" games their is no reason they wouldn't experience similar success; if not better.
This bit confused me. Are you talking about the games they make or their reputation?jthm said:many bought it based on Nintendo's name and history
Unless the hardcore games they make are good. It sounds like you believe they are both going to fail. Which is foolish. The big three are completely different companies, with different ideals. For you to just dismiss both Move and Kinect is absurd. You don't have the necessary data to accurately predict how well they will do. Your "assumptions" are just wild speculation, based on nothing.
Well, I'm confident I'm right. This isn't an argument. You were the one who believed it was. This is a discussion based on opinions. No one is right and no one is wrong. Oh, and it sounded arrogant because you came off as saying: "I am right and you are wrong. I get paid toanalyze stuff and make guesses based on nothingpredict market trends and predict the future of the market."
Even if every "hardcore gamer" bought both a Move and Kinect and any system they didn't already own to use them, Microsoft and Sony would not see success on the same scale as Nintendo did because the "casual gamer" market is MUCH larger and was almost completely untapped before the Wii (guitar hero and rockband possibly counting as an exception to that). The majority of the casual market aren't going to shell out $300 dollars for a system and then another $100 to $200 for peripherals that do what a layman to gaming might describe as the same thing as the Wii they already own. Particularly not during a global recession.
I don't expect them to fail, I expect them to not live up to their hype and probably break even. Best case scenario, Microsoft and Sony will see a marginal profit in the first year and a half after launch and then drop the price after that to sell more units. That is dependent upon good software. A "killer app" that utilizes motion controls for either system will boost sales. Either way though, back to the original point, E3 2012 is the most likely point for microsoft to unveil a new system, and Sony will not be far behind. Distinct companies they may be, but like all companies they have the same goal and ideal, to maximize profit. Market thinking is fairly predictable, if you see your competitor raking in a huge profit, do what he's doing, only try to do it better.
I don't know I can explain this any simpler for you. Not trying to be insulting with this, but you just don't seem to get it. Basic video game console manufacturer strategy is as follows (warning, oversimplified).
1. Release console and hype game lineup for it, focus hype on how console is superior to previous generation of hardware. (wii, 360, ps3)
2. Sell basic consoles and rake in profit from game sales, use unit and retail upts (units per transaction) sales numbers to entice investors.
3. Release peripheral just as sales begin to flag. (sensor plus, Kinect, Move, expanded hard drive, etc.)
4. Rake in profit from peripheral sales and hyped peripheral exclusive lineup. Peripherals boost upts, keeping investor confidence up.
5. As sales begin to flag, hype up new console and game lineup. Generate retailer preorders. Use numbers to boost investor confidence.
6. Repeat from step 1.
As to Nintendo, I was talking about their reputation. Nintendo was still the first gaming console manufacturer to become a household name (unless you grew up raised by early adopters and had an Atari 2600... Oh, Qbert). That's a powerful selling point in their favor and they do trade on it.
Just because you don't know what it is, doesn't mean it's nothing. Sales and trends, figures and statistics, public opinion and forum posting all enter into this line of work, just for starters. The biggest part of it though is just recognizing patterns and trends. If I wasn't right more often than I'm wrong, I wouldn't keep drawing a paycheck. The fact that I do should tell you something.
Discussion based on opinion in which one or more parties asserts that the other party is wrong is an argument. I pointed out where you were incorrect and/or not in full possession of the facts, you defended your position and attempted to point out where you thought I was wrong. That is the very definition of argument. Follow this link to see why I'm not going to continue it with you.
http://www.stimpco.com/carpix/arguingOnTheInternet.gif