Satisfied PS2 customers will more than likely transfer to the PS3.

Makes sense. I was a satisfied PS2 person and thats why I bought PS3.Telekill

If history has taught us anything, it's that the success of a previous console doesn't equate to it's predecessor being as successful.

N64 for example. 

People will buy a console for games and price, not brand loyalty.

You're probably right. But i was a satisfied PS2 owner. I now own an xbox 360mmogoon

i think your Right, since PS2 owners are probably waiting for a PS3 price drop :DNY_Yankees_FTW

Odd.

I own over 100 games for the PSX and PS2 each, and I have sadly have no interest in the PS3 until mid 2008 some time. I don't think the transfer consumer idea is fully supported. Nintendo is a great example of this concept not working.

With this mentality one would essentially be saying Sony will always be on top, which is rather foolish IMHO.

[QUOTE="mmogoon"]You're probably right. But i was a satisfied PS2 owner. I now own an xbox 360GatoFeo

doesint really matter at all, the console that wins has the best games that we here at system wars can agree on, not 90 million casuals buying a certain one.mark4091

Actually the console that sells the most is the "winner" of a generation. This is logical and objective, not subjective as your method would be.

Odd.

I own over 100 games for the PSX and PS2 each, and I have sadly have no interest in the PS3 until mid 2008 some time. I don't think the transfer consumer idea is fully supported. Nintendo is a great example of this concept not working.

With this mentality one would essentially be saying Sony will always be on top, which is rather foolish IMHO.

-RPGamer-

You'd think that most SNES owners would get a N64....but alas.goblaa

[QUOTE="mark4091"]doesint really matter at all, the console that wins has the best games that we here at system wars can agree on, not 90 million casuals buying a certain one.-RPGamer-

Actually the console that sells the most is the "winner" of a generation. This is logical and objective, not subjective as your method would be.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Odd.

I own over 100 games for the PSX and PS2 each, and I have sadly have no interest in the PS3 until mid 2008 some time. I don't think the transfer consumer idea is fully supported. Nintendo is a great example of this concept not working.

With this mentality one would essentially be saying Sony will always be on top, which is rather foolish IMHO.

the-very-best

Exactly, I wouldn't use me as a reference considering I do buy all the consoles. All I prove is that their exists a type of gamer that doesn't give a damn about brands and sees value in each respective piece of hardware.

Look at it this way, I bought the PSX and PS2 on launch. Do I have a PS3 yet? No.
Or you can look at it tlike this, I have a Wii and Xbox 360 from launch. Do I have a PS3? No.

Series don't always remain in one place, and a once proven series doesn't always remain there. And like I said before (as have others) Nintendo shows us that this concept isn't well supported. You mention casuals, but you have to consider Xbox 360 has some very casual friendly content. PS products no longer have the timed exclusive GTA series on their side, and Halo is fast becoming one of the most recognized names in gaming even to those who don't game all that much (casuals). Toss in the Wii and it's odd ability to pull in non-gamers and you're left with a market that isn't this predictable static object, but more of a dynamic beast.

You'd think that most SNES owners would get a N64....but alas.goblaa

I'm just repeating something most people already know but it seems to be an overlooked point that hardcore gamers/casuals who were/are happy with their PS2 will more than likely make the transfer to the PS3 in 2 years or so.

SW is a little surprising to me because most people in here already own a current gen (PS3, 360, Wii) console yet traditionally consumers wait around 2 years before buying a new console.

In 2 years the PS3 will already have all the major series that made the PS2 so successful.

"But that's waiting". No. I'm not arguing that the console will be worth the purchase in 2 years. I'm saying that's when PS3 will win/start to obviously win the console war.

Just want to point that out because many seem to overlook that. Anyway, what do you think about it?
the-very-best

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

[QUOTE="mark4091"]doesint really matter at all, the console that wins has the best games that we here at system wars can agree on, not 90 million casuals buying a certain one.mark4091

Actually the console that sells the most is the "winner" of a generation. This is logical and objective, not subjective as your method would be.

I know many like that already as well that work on my team (PS2 -> Xbox 360).

I'm talking about the winner here on SW is the company that sells the most when the generation is said and done.

Exactly, I wouldn't use me as a reference considering I do buy all the consoles. All I prove is that their exists a type of gamer that doesn't give a damn about brands and sees value in each respective piece of hardware.

Look at it this way, I bought the PSX and PS2 on launch. Do I have a PS3 yet? No.
Or you can look at it tlike this, I have a Wii and Xbox 360 from launch. Do I have a PS3? No.

Series don't always remain in one place, and a once proven series doesn't always remain there. And like I said before (as have others) Nintendo shows us that this concept isn't well supported. You mention casuals, but you have to consider Xbox 360 has some very casual friendly content. PS products no longer have the timed exclusive GTA series on their side, and Halo is fast becoming one of the most recognized names in gaming even to those who don't game all that much (casuals). Toss in the Wii and it's odd ability to pull in non-gamers and you're left with a market that isn't this predictable static object, but more of a dynamic beast.

-RPGamer-

[QUOTE="goblaa"]You'd think that most SNES owners would get a N64....but alas.the-very-best

Halo was big with Halo 2 and it didn't cause people to just turn to the Xbox.

The 360 has sold much less than predicted by MS...few reasons could include that the console was released in the prime of the PS2, another could be that it's too expensive, another and a major one is the brand name is still not as strong as Sony's.

I agree with your Wii point completely though. It's just unpredictable what will happen with that console.

I don't think Wii's sales will hurt the PS3's though. They're targeting completely different markets.
the-very-best

[QUOTE="goblaa"]You'd think that most SNES owners would get a N64....but alas.the-very-best

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Exactly, I wouldn't use me as a reference considering I do buy all the consoles. All I prove is that their exists a type of gamer that doesn't give a damn about brands and sees value in each respective piece of hardware.

Look at it this way, I bought the PSX and PS2 on launch. Do I have a PS3 yet? No.
Or you can look at it tlike this, I have a Wii and Xbox 360 from launch. Do I have a PS3? No.

Series don't always remain in one place, and a once proven series doesn't always remain there. And like I said before (as have others) Nintendo shows us that this concept isn't well supported. You mention casuals, but you have to consider Xbox 360 has some very casual friendly content. PS products no longer have the timed exclusive GTA series on their side, and Halo is fast becoming one of the most recognized names in gaming even to those who don't game all that much (casuals). Toss in the Wii and it's odd ability to pull in non-gamers and you're left with a market that isn't this predictable static object, but more of a dynamic beast.

the-very-best

I agree the Xbox brand name isn't as strong as Sony's Playstation brand name. Does this mean it will remain as such? No.

And it's not just Halo that the Xbox franchise is bringing to the table in terms of gamers and casuals. Halo is just a heavy player nowadays.

I don't think the markets between the Wii and PS3 are as different as you probably do.

[QUOTE="the-very-best"][QUOTE="goblaa"]You'd think that most SNES owners would get a N64....but alas.goblaa

Sony hasn't lost any major exclusives, with the exception of GTA, but it's still going to the PS3. N64 didn't even get FFVII.

the-very-best

I call losing DQIX to the DS a pretty heavy blow for the eastern markets and Sony.

I agree the Xbox brand name isn't as strong as Sony's Playstation brand name. Does this mean it will remain as such? No.

And it's not just Halo that the Xbox franchise is bringing to the table in terms of gamers and casuals. Halo is just a heavy player nowadays.

I don't think the markets between the Wii and PS3 are as different as you probably do.

-RPGamer-

I call losing DQIX to the DS a pretty heavy blow for the eastern markets and Sony.

-RPGamer-

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

I call losing DQIX to the DS a pretty heavy blow for the eastern markets and Sony.

the-very-best

If history has taught us anything, it's that the success of a previous console doesn't equate to it's predecessor being as successful.

N64 for example. 

People will buy a console for games and price, not brand loyalty.

Donkey_Puncher

Nintendo didnt have a hold of the industry like Sony has it right now.

Lots of people will just buy the PS3 because it bears the name of "Playstation", instead of just looking up information and then choose to buy a console.Sensui1986

Maybe thats because for the past 2 gens it was a guarantee that u were gonna get amazing games.with the PS brand.

[QUOTE="the-very-best"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

I call losing DQIX to the DS a pretty heavy blow for the eastern markets and Sony.

mythrol