Year head start is irrelevant

Two consoles offering basically the same games with somewhat similar price points, both in HD, blah blah, of course the year head start made a difference. How much of a difference? Well, how many consoles did they sell in that year? Anyone saying it didn't make a difference and that somehow the $250 price point versus the $600 price point didn't make a difference, is delusional, point-blank. It's simple logic. Using the Wii as an example of anything is bad form, by the way, it's not exactly the norm/standard for how console sales work, but thanks for playing.Hahadouken

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

The head start argument is irrelevant because this is business and not what ifs. Every company is capable of launching at anytime, if you choose not to, that's you're loss. Its no one elses problem. Is it a reason to be behind? Absolutely yes, is it one I should cut you slack for? Not a chance in hell my friends.

santoron

If it is a contributing reason for the differences in install bases by your reckoning, then you're saying it's relevant. Giving it relevance doesn't mean nothing else counts, just that it counts too. Should System Warriors be allowed to flaunt 360 install base over the PS3? Sure, if that's your thing, go for it. It's a fact. Denying it relevance is to say it had ZERO impact on the current state of the gaming industry, and you don't seem willing to make that statement.

correct, it is relevant to the PS3 being behind. Its not a good excuse however because Sony did it to themselves. Its like an athlete falling in the middle of a race and losing. Is that partially the reason they lost? Of course it is. In the grand overview, is it relevant to what has happened and how everyone else did not screw up? Not a chance in hell. No one is saying the head start has nothing to do with the 360 leading, who the hell said that? Quote all of them for me. People are saying, the "what if" game is bull**** and they're absolutely right. That is not an excuse for what has happened now regardless of how much "relevance" you put on it. You think businesses accept this type of garbage reasoning? No. So why should I? Honest question. You my friend are confusing relevant for excuse. I should have used excuse (even though it is blatantly obvious to what I mean). Everything has a reason and those reasons are relevant, its that its a piss poor excuse to be losing because both history and statistics show, you can win with a year behind. Just because Sony couldn't, it does not mean that now hiding behind this year later launch excuse is relevant. Something to remember is that Sony set up most of its own damn circumstances from price to launch date, they are reasons for piss poor ps3 numbers, they are not an excuse for corporate incompetance.

360- 2005

PS3 + Wii- 2006

Wii>360>PS3

The Wii was the last of the current gen systems to be released and is winning the sales war. "But Silverbond, surely you must acknowledge that they target different audiences." Two word response: Notanymore.

So here is what I propose: If the PS3 can't outsell the 360 in the amount of time it took the Wii to outsell the 360 when Move releases then the headstart becomes irrelevant.

And even, then the "audience arguement" is completely moronic considering that what you are in effect saying is that the PS2 and Xbox + GC targeted different audiences.

Silverbond

I completely agree that the "headstart" arguement is BS. I have made this arguement (to no avail) many times and will continue to make this point.

Having said that, your arguement makes absolutely no sense.

The year headstart is relevant to why the PS3 is where it is today, but it's not the only reason. The very high price tag in comparison to the other consoles, along with the fact that it didn't have the best of launch games didn't give gamers any real incentive to get the PS3 over the 360. Plus, since the Wii has a very different library to that of both the PS3 and 360, and it was much cheaper than the PS3, people tended to buy the Wii instead of the PS3. So yes, the year headstart is relevant, but it's not the only reason.

The year headstart is relevant to why the PS3 is where it is today, but it's not the only reason. The very high price tag in comparison to the other consoles, along with the fact that it didn't have the best of launch games didn't give gamers any real incentive to get the PS3 over the 360. Plus, since the Wii has a very different library to that of both the PS3 and 360, and it was much cheaper than the PS3, people tended to buy the Wii instead of the PS3. So yes, the year headstart is relevant, but it's not the only reason.

idontbeliveit

Who's fault is this? Nintendo didn't have a good launch title for the Wii so they delayed a finished product for a year to better their market position and ensure they had atleast a reason to intice people to pick up the system. Its called looking into the future and anticipating problems. Apparently Sony sucks at this but lets give em slack right?

That right there is bull. The Wii sold off the back of Wii Sports, people who wanted a Wii generally did not give a damn about the PS3 price or not. Otherwise I would not hear so much soccer mom and kids comments.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

The head start argument is irrelevant because this is business and not what ifs. Every company is capable of launching at anytime, if you choose not to, that's you're loss. Its no one elses problem. Is it a reason to be behind? Absolutely yes, is it one I should cut you slack for? Not a chance in hell my friends.

ActicEdge

If it is a contributing reason for the differences in install bases by your reckoning, then you're saying it's relevant. Giving it relevance doesn't mean nothing else counts, just that it counts too. Should System Warriors be allowed to flaunt 360 install base over the PS3? Sure, if that's your thing, go for it. It's a fact. Denying it relevance is to say it had ZERO impact on the current state of the gaming industry, and you don't seem willing to make that statement.

correct, it is relevant to the PS3 being behind. Its not a good excuse however because Sony did it to themselves. Its like an athlete falling in the middle of a race and losing. Is that partially the reason they lost? Of course it is. In the grand overview, is it relevant to what has happened and how everyone else did not screw up? Not a chance in hell. No one is saying the head start has nothing to do with the 360 leading, who the hell said that? Quote all of them for me. People are saying, the "what if" game is bull**** and they're absolutely right. That is not an excuse for what has happened now regardless of how much "relevance" you put on it. You think businesses accept this type of garbage reasoning? No. So why should I? Honest question. You my friend are confusing relevant for excuse. I should have used excuse (even though it is blatantly obvious to what I mean). Everything has a reason and those reasons are relevant, its that its a piss poor excuse to be losing because both history and statistics show, you can win with a year behind. Just because Sony couldn't, it does not mean that now hiding behind this year later launch excuse is relevant. Something to remember is that Sony set up most of its own damn circumstances from price to launch date, they are reasons for piss poor ps3 numbers, they are not an excuse for corporate incompetance.

[QUOTE="idontbeliveit"]

The year headstart is relevant to why the PS3 is where it is today, but it's not the only reason. The very high price tag in comparison to the other consoles, along with the fact that it didn't have the best of launch games didn't give gamers any real incentive to get the PS3 over the 360. Plus, since the Wii has a very different library to that of both the PS3 and 360, and it was much cheaper than the PS3, people tended to buy the Wii instead of the PS3. So yes, the year headstart is relevant, but it's not the only reason.

Who's fault is this? Nintendo didn't have a good launch title for the Wii so they delayed a finished product for a year to better their market position and ensure they had atleast a reason to intice people to pick up the system. Its called looking into the future and anticipating problems. Apparently Sony sucks at this but lets give em slack right?

That right there is bull. The Wii sold off the back of Wii Sports, people who wanted a Wii generally did not give a damn about the PS3 price or not. Otherwise I would not hear so much soccer mom and kids comments.

360- 2005

PS3 + Wii- 2006

Wii>360>PS3

The Wii was the last of the current gen systems to be released and is winning the sales war. "But Silverbond, surely you must acknowledge that they target different audiences." Two word response: Notanymore.

So here is what I propose: If the PS3 can't outsell the 360 in the amount of time it took the Wii to outsell the 360 when Move releases then the headstart becomes irrelevant.

And even, then the "audience arguement" is completely moronic considering that what you are in effect saying is that the PS2 and Xbox + GC targeted different audiences.

Silverbond

maybe when natal is actually released you can say this but right now anything you say about natal is pure speculation.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="santoron"]

If it is a contributing reason for the differences in install bases by your reckoning, then you're saying it's relevant. Giving it relevance doesn't mean nothing else counts, just that it counts too. Should System Warriors be allowed to flaunt 360 install base over the PS3? Sure, if that's your thing, go for it. It's a fact. Denying it relevance is to say it had ZERO impact on the current state of the gaming industry, and you don't seem willing to make that statement.

Greyfeld

correct, it is relevant to the PS3 being behind. Its not a good excuse however because Sony did it to themselves. Its like an athlete falling in the middle of a race and losing. Is that partially the reason they lost? Of course it is. In the grand overview, is it relevant to what has happened and how everyone else did not screw up? Not a chance in hell. No one is saying the head start has nothing to do with the 360 leading, who the hell said that? Quote all of them for me. People are saying, the "what if" game is bull**** and they're absolutely right. That is not an excuse for what has happened now regardless of how much "relevance" you put on it. You think businesses accept this type of garbage reasoning? No. So why should I? Honest question. You my friend are confusing relevant for excuse. I should have used excuse (even though it is blatantly obvious to what I mean). Everything has a reason and those reasons are relevant, its that its a piss poor excuse to be losing because both history and statistics show, you can win with a year behind. Just because Sony couldn't, it does not mean that now hiding behind this year later launch excuse is relevant. Something to remember is that Sony set up most of its own damn circumstances from price to launch date, they are reasons for piss poor ps3 numbers, they are not an excuse for corporate incompetance.

Actually I could highlight a lot of what MS did right and wrong too but this was about Sony. 360 is a great console but no one plays a geration perfectly, MS screwed up many times this gen as well. They just played their cards better than Sony. Sony's problem is not 100% there own isolated entity, the other market players helped too. I'm saying that Sony is the one to blame for the head start and the price which is true.

Sales in general are irrelevent now that every console on the market has surpassed 35 million consoles sold. All three companies and consoles are here to stay for a very long time.W1NGMAN-

As usual, people don't understand the dictionary definitions of words. Look up "irrelevant" before you continue, because most of these arguments do not suggest "irrelevant", just that it's not the only contributing factor.Hahadouken

wii will not be silverbound

hahah nice try sony cant pull 30 million out of its hat ,sorry

nice try

you think using move would help sony

-newsflash nintendo already released that years ago

this is like saying gg out sold gb ,

it aint gonna happen

A year head start is not irrelevant no matter how you swing it. The X360 is more popular system in the US & UK plain and simple.djsifer01

Head start does not matter. It was Sony's fault they couldnt release the PS3 in a timely manner.

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]A year head start is not irrelevant no matter how you swing it. The X360 is more popular system in the US & UK plain and simple.DarkLink77

Availability, pricepoint, level of competition, killer apps and software, marketing and PR all contribute to the success of a piece of hardware.

The year headstart is not the only factor in the current state of the console market, but it is a factor, as has already been pointed out.

Heaven's forbit it could be a combination of the price, the launch line-up and releasing a year after a rival had already been on the market that relegated the PS3 to third in sales.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]A year head start is not irrelevant no matter how you swing it. The X360 is more popular system in the US & UK plain and simple.shinrabanshou

Availability, pricepoint, level of competition, killer apps and software, marketing and PR all contribute to the success of a piece of hardware.

The year headstart is not the only factor in the current state of the console market, but it is a factor, as has already been pointed out.

Heaven's forbit it could be a combination of the price, the launch line-up and releasing a year after a rival had already been on the market that relegated the PS3 to third in sales.

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]A year head start is not irrelevant no matter how you swing it. The X360 is more popular system in the US & UK plain and simple.DarkLink77

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]A year head start is not irrelevant no matter how you swing it. The X360 is more popular system in the US & UK plain and simple.Mestitia

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Yeah, it is. You want to know what killed the PS3? $599 USD An awful launch lineup. It had absolutely nothing to do with a year later launch. Game consoles sell themselves. They don't start magically not selling because another one is on the market first. If the product is truly superior, and the public wants it, it will sell. Simple economics.DarkLink77

Availability, pricepoint, level of competition, killer apps and software, marketing and PR all contribute to the success of a piece of hardware.

The year headstart is not the only factor in the current state of the console market, but it is a factor, as has already been pointed out.

Heaven's forbit it could be a combination of the price, the launch line-up and releasing a year after a rival had already been on the market that relegated the PS3 to third in sales.

You can have a fantastic product, of great value and quality and it can still fail to become the market leader. Just like you can have a crap product, market the hell out of it and have it succeed.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]Game consoles do not sell themselves. And that's hardly simple economics.

Availability, pricepoint, level of competition, killer apps and software, marketing and PR all contribute to the success of a piece of hardware.

The year headstart is not the only factor in the current state of the console market, but it is a factor, as has already been pointed out.

Heaven's forbit it could be a combination of the price, the launch line-up and releasing a year after a rival had already been on the market that relegated the PS3 to third in sales.

shinrabanshou

You can have a fantastic product, of great value and quality and it can still fail to become the market leader. Just like you can have a crap product, market the hell out of it and have it succeed.

Its not how you start, its how you finish.

While I can see the advantage of the head start, its not as big of a deal as cows want to think. I know several people who waited until the PS3 came out to make their decision. Its not like all of the PS2 fans ran out and bought a 360 just because it was out first, that is laughable at best.

Only fanboys deny that, Dreamcast came before PS2 and lost, Sega Genesis came out 2 years before Super Nintendo and lost, see a pattern?

Only fanboys deny that, Dreamcast came before PS2 and lost, Sega Genesis came out 2 years before Super Nintendo and lost, see a pattern?

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Only fanboys deny that, Dreamcast came before PS2 and lost, Sega Genesis came out 2 years before Super Nintendo and lost, see a pattern?

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

Only fanboys deny that, Dreamcast came before PS2 and lost, Sega Genesis came out 2 years before Super Nintendo and lost, see a pattern?

mitu123

I really cant see Move or Natal being that huge and a favor tipper. I think they will be neat gimmicks, but thats it. Anyway, anything could happen. PS3 could outsell 360 (but then again, does it really matter that it does? I would argue MS kinda won this gen more than sony would have considering how much marketshare MS took from Sony.)

I can sum up what fanboys and other hypocrites think of the year head start real quick here.

Cows:

amount of quality games=not relevant

amount of consoles sold=relevant

Lemmings:

amount of quality games=relevant

amount of consoles sold=not relevant

Sheep:

amount of quality games = "we will always have the largest amount of exclusives" forgetting why that's the case, and not really caring that the quality is not really on the same level as 360 and ps3.

amount of consoles sold=not relevant, "we WIN!!"

Consoles sell themselves based on games, and features. Yes, marketing helps, but it does not define how well the console will sell. Besides, this is about the head start, not marketing.DarkLink77

The 360 released a year beforehand as the only next gen console on the market.

The PS3 released a year after, alongside not only the competition of a well established competitor with a sizable lead, but a third console which has gone onto become this generations market leader.

No one is saying that the timing of retail availability is the only factor involved in the current console hardware install bases.

But to say that it wasn't a factor at all is folly.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Consoles sell themselves based on games, and features. Yes, marketing helps, but it does not define how well the console will sell. Besides, this is about the head start, not marketing.shinrabanshou

The 360 released a year beforehand as the only next gen console on the market.

The PS3 released a year after, alongside not only the competition of a well established competitor with a sizable lead, but a third console which has gone onto become this generations market leader.

No one is saying that the timing of retail availability is the only factor involved in the current console hardware install bases.

But to say that it wasn't a factor at all is folly.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Consoles sell themselves based on games, and features. Yes, marketing helps, but it does not define how well the console will sell. Besides, this is about the head start, not marketing.DarkLink77

The 360 released a year beforehand as the only next gen console on the market.

The PS3 released a year after, alongside not only the competition of a well established competitor with a sizable lead, but a third console which has gone onto become this generations market leader.

No one is saying that the timing of retail availability is the only factor involved in the current console hardware install bases.

But to say that it wasn't a factor at all is folly.

As already stated earlier: False dichotomy.

It need not always be a factor of impact, to be a factor of impact at all.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]Marketing, as well as timing of availability and competition on the market. To ignore the latter factors is ignorance.

The 360 released a year beforehand as the only next gen console on the market.

The PS3 released a year after, alongside not only the competition of a well established competitor with a sizable lead, but a third console which has gone onto become this generations market leader.

No one is saying that the timing of retail availability is the only factor involved in the current console hardware install bases.

But to say that it wasn't a factor at all is folly.

shinrabanshou

As already stated earlier: False dichotomy.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] It didn't seem to affect the Wii. Or the SNES. Or the PS2 much. So I'm gonna go with... it doesn't matter.DarkLink77

As already stated earlier: False dichotomy.

360- 2005

PS3 + Wii- 2006

Wii>360>PS3

The Wii was the last of the current gen systems to be released and is winning the sales war. "But Silverbond, surely you must acknowledge that they target different audiences." Two word response: Notanymore.

So here is what I propose: If the PS3 can't outsell the 360 in the amount of time it took the Wii to outsell the 360 when Move releases then the headstart becomes irrelevant.

And even, then the "audience arguement" is completely moronic considering that what you are in effect saying is that the PS2 and Xbox + GC targeted different audiences.

Silverbond

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

As already stated earlier: False dichotomy.

shinrabanshou

[QUOTE="santoron"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

The head start argument is irrelevant because this is business and not what ifs. Every company is capable of launching at anytime, if you choose not to, that's you're loss. Its no one elses problem. Is it a reason to be behind? Absolutely yes, is it one I should cut you slack for? Not a chance in hell my friends.

ActicEdge

If it is a contributing reason for the differences in install bases by your reckoning, then you're saying it's relevant. Giving it relevance doesn't mean nothing else counts, just that it counts too. Should System Warriors be allowed to flaunt 360 install base over the PS3? Sure, if that's your thing, go for it. It's a fact. Denying it relevance is to say it had ZERO impact on the current state of the gaming industry, and you don't seem willing to make that statement.

correct, it is relevant to the PS3 being behind. Its not a good excuse however because Sony did it to themselves. Its like an athlete falling in the middle of a race and losing. Is that partially the reason they lost? Of course it is. In the grand overview, is it relevant to what has happened and how everyone else did not screw up? Not a chance in hell. No one is saying the head start has nothing to do with the 360 leading, who the hell said that? Quote all of them for me. People are saying, the "what if" game is bull**** and they're absolutely right. That is not an excuse for what has happened now regardless of how much "relevance" you put on it. You think businesses accept this type of garbage reasoning? No. So why should I? Honest question. You my friend are confusing relevant for excuse. I should have used excuse (even though it is blatantly obvious to what I mean). Everything has a reason and those reasons are relevant, its that its a piss poor excuse to be losing because both history and statistics show, you can win with a year behind. Just because Sony couldn't, it does not mean that now hiding behind this year later launch excuse is relevant. Something to remember is that Sony set up most of its own damn circumstances from price to launch date, they are reasons for piss poor ps3 numbers, they are not an excuse for corporate incompetance.

To be "fair", Microsoft went into this gen with one goal: To be first to market. They've made no bones abot that fact. It paid off for them, and Sony should definitely see by now that their subsequesnt delays after the 360's launch hurt them badly. I'm not arguing business. Everything in business is fair. What isn't "fair" or, to be more precise, honest, is the attempt by 360 affecionados trying to make comparisons on the install bases without acknowledging what that lead gave.

I'm not confusing relevance for anything but relevance. It matters not one whit to me what the final tallies might be. I've simply stated the truth: The one year lead had direct (and several indirect) relevant effects on the install bases. If you're looking to be honest with the state of the industry, you acknowledge that. If you're touting 360 sales over the PS3 without being honest about ALL of the causes, and not just the ones that paint the object of your affection in the most positive light, you're creating a falsehood. The TC is trying to do just that, again. And , again, I'm simply saying that it's a ridiculous and indefensible stance.

"Piss poor numbers" seems a bit of a stretch, but whatever. Sony has performed a bit better than Microsoft since the PS3 launched til now. If one performance is "Piss poor", I'd argue they both have been. To me, they've both done well enough that we all see good install bases attracting talented devs to create fantastic games. What other good is an install base worth to the individual gamer?

Head starts are irrelevant in general. It didn't stop the PS2 from crushing the Dreamcast, did it?

DarkLink77

So... much... blood...

If only blackbond was around to appreciate this thread.. ;)xsubtownerx