[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]I don't. Most people don't get multiple consoles. The PS2's success should show that. Over 100 million PS2s were sold, relative to about 45 million Xboxes and Gamecubes. That means that at least half the market owned only one console. Very likely, the proportion is much, much higher. Why would things be different this time around?mjarantilla
I agree, most people only get one console. But I don't think that the people who only bought one console feel that they HAVE to buy a new console at all, especially when the only two alternatives don't suit their preferences.
Now, they MAY have started buying after a price drop to sub-$300, but by then I think most will have been weaned off any desire at all for a new system. It would have to be an impulse buy at that point, and for many folks, $300 is still too high for an impulse buy, especially if the price drop occurs two or three years from now when the systems won't seem nearly as impressive.
There'd probably be some hit to the market if there were no Wii (after all, one of the three providers would have disappeared), but I can't imagine those 400,000 consumers a month would disappear altogether. All game consoles fulfill a similar function. For many, if they need that niche filled, the 360 and PS3 do serve as substitutes for the Wii, albeit imperfect ones.sonicmj1
I imagine they simply wouldn't buy into the next generation at all. That's a possibility no one really talks about, even though it's perfectly evident from still-high PS2 sales. People who buy the Wii on its own simply aren't looking for a "next gen" experience, and I think they'd be perfectly happy to content themselves with the PS2. Even if devs stopped or slowed down making games for it, there are still thousands of existing games to choose from.
Still, you missed my other point. Considering the PS2 was about as successful as the Wii in terms of console sales, with a lineup of approximately equal strength, dominating its competitors to a similar degree, would you say that Sony saved the console industry last generation?sonicmj1
No, because Sony succeeded equally well during the PS1/N64 generation, and that success largely carried over to the 2001 era. Now, I would say that Sony probably saved the PS1/N64 generation, since Sega declined DRASTICALLY and the N64 sold 15 million fewer than the SNES. But even then, much of that decline can probably be attributed to direct competition from Sony. I don't think it can be reasonably claimed that the Wii is in direct competition with the 360 or PS3, and certainly not to the same extent as the PS1 was to the N64 and Saturn.
Breaking up quotes is helpful for reading, but it makes it so much harder to reply...
To an extent, I agree with you. Nintendo is occupying a niche that wasn't catered to as directly by their competitors. It was a really smart move for them, as it allowed them to capture a market more massive than Sony and Microsoft realized. If they weren't there, there would be a number of people who would choose not to move on to the next generation, or at least would delay that shift for a long time. The market might face a hit as a result. Then again, a fairly major competitor would have completely vanished, which would be strange enough in itself. Where would those Nintendo games go?
But the people who would forgo the next generation are just a portion of the group that bought Wiis. There are also plenty who wanted the next cool console, and they'd get something else if the Wii wasn't there. The 360 wouldn't be selling 180,000 units, and the PS3 80,000, with no other competition whatsoever. The people who didn't get Wiis would still want games.
I don't see Sony as having saved the market, even in that situation, because they just did what they had to do to get money. Filling the right niche at the right time definitely helps the market, but it's difficult to say what would have happened had they not been there. If there hadn't been a Playstation there for people to buy, they still would have wanted videogames.
Log in to comment