I myself have used the car analogy, not to compare the consoles to cars as an analogy of performance, but more as an illustration of market forecasting. It came from all the sonyfans bravado that the most expensive console will sell the most and remain #1 in market share. I've referenced from gaming history many times that the most expensive console has never held the #1 spot in any generation. But they insist that the price doesn't matter, EVERYBODY will justify it and gladly hand over $500-$600 because of the power of the Sony brand name.
So I use the example, which cars do you see more of on the road - Ferrari's, Jaguars, Rolls Royces, or Fords, Toyota's, and Hyundai's? We all know the answer to this. Cost IS important in making a buying decision for the casuals, but the hardcores just don't get this. They go on and on about the specs and the blu ray, and just don't get that casuals don't care about tech specs. As long as they see pretty visuals and a reasonable price tag, they'll get that and won't see the need to spend so much on PS3.
Three things:
* I am NOT saying PS3 won't sell at all or fail in the market like NeoGeo and 3DO did. It will have a healthy share of the market, but it's too expensive to be #1.
* one flaw in the car analogy, while most would probably prefer a Ferrari rather than a Ford, but are just buying what they can afford - NOT every gamer wants a PS3. It may not have anything to do with the price tag either, maybe they got sick of the E3 lies, or just don't care for the game library, or every game they want is on both PS3 and X360, but the latter offers them for a better price. Invariable reasons, but there you have it.
* In the case of consoles, cheapest isn't a guarunteed formula for success. Gamecubelast gen was cheapest and still in last place. There still needs to be a healthy game library to justify the price no matter how low.
 
 
Â
Log in to comment