That's really important, to me. I think of a console as a major appliance. The one time initial cost is not as important as continuing costs. For instance, I would never buy a TV that needs expensive replacement bulbs periodically. Cheap games. Backwards compatibility so I can get used games from the previous generation. Old retro games. I'm something of a cheapskate.pc999 said:
Average Joe's criteria when buying a console
- Thread starter _xxx_
- Start date
- Status
No, they're telling him to spend $500 to get a "computer", with BRRobertR1 said:
Ok, im not average joe in any way at all. When it comes to 360, the game stores here dont sell it, or, have so pitfully few games, probably few will get any, until PS3 comes. It could be my local stores wait for PS3, and dont bother try selling what they belive is a loosing product.
I am willing to get both, but its not any good games to buy here, and dont know of any tempting 360 games, so i wait.
I am willing to get both, but its not any good games to buy here, and dont know of any tempting 360 games, so i wait.
rabidrabbit said:No, they're telling him to spend $500 to get a "computer", with BR
I wouldn't tell him anything like that. I'd just tell him to wait a little while, so I can buy one of those rare, near impossible to find first-batch PS3s first, and he can get one cheaper later.
See, I am an "enthusiast" in the PC space because I like to tweak stuff, explore new possibilities etc. But a machine used solely for entertainment residing in my living room should just be fun, instant-on, relatively cheap and easy to use.
All I want is to turn the thing on (which MUSTN'T go longer than a few seconds), start a game and enjoy it without any need to think about ANY sort of tech-related issues/questions. Because to me, a game console belongs into the same category as a TV or a DVD player - I'm just a "dumb" user and everything just works with no hassle. A "consumer appliance" kind of product.
Surely the discussion about the tech behind that is interesting as always, but speaking as a consumer, I think both MS and Sony are selling us the PC with different optics, Sony unexpectedly even moreso than MS it seems.
The point I'm trying to make is that Wii is the only product this gen that I can consider as a more or less "pure" game console. And unless PS3 really kicks serious arse in every regard and does all it's supposed to and more in a very conviniant way, Wii will be the only one I'll buy for the sole purpose of easy gaming fun.
I wonder if it will be possible to write "regular" SW for the PS3's OS, that would make it all much more interesting and open the possibility of a viable alternative to the Windows-based PC. But that's just wishful thinking on my side, methinks
All I want is to turn the thing on (which MUSTN'T go longer than a few seconds), start a game and enjoy it without any need to think about ANY sort of tech-related issues/questions. Because to me, a game console belongs into the same category as a TV or a DVD player - I'm just a "dumb" user and everything just works with no hassle. A "consumer appliance" kind of product.
Surely the discussion about the tech behind that is interesting as always, but speaking as a consumer, I think both MS and Sony are selling us the PC with different optics, Sony unexpectedly even moreso than MS it seems.
The point I'm trying to make is that Wii is the only product this gen that I can consider as a more or less "pure" game console. And unless PS3 really kicks serious arse in every regard and does all it's supposed to and more in a very conviniant way, Wii will be the only one I'll buy for the sole purpose of easy gaming fun.
I wonder if it will be possible to write "regular" SW for the PS3's OS, that would make it all much more interesting and open the possibility of a viable alternative to the Windows-based PC. But that's just wishful thinking on my side, methinks
I think the average gamer wants the most powerful system most.
Yep, yep I do.
There are many other factors but I think power is number 1 for the casual gamer..no I'm not joking.
Of course people will mention PS2 here. BUT: PS2 had many reasons for superior sales. One year head start, a few key game exclusives (GTA), 1/3 of the world market (Japan) as a virtual monopoly to itself, etc. If you look at USA Xbox was pretty competitive when it had no right to be, starting from scratch. I believe the only factor in Xbox success was power (this is what GC lacked by comparison).
If people really believe power is so far down the list of concerns for the average gamer..then Xbox would have never outsold the NGC and carved out the niche that it did.
Yep, yep I do.
There are many other factors but I think power is number 1 for the casual gamer..no I'm not joking.
Of course people will mention PS2 here. BUT: PS2 had many reasons for superior sales. One year head start, a few key game exclusives (GTA), 1/3 of the world market (Japan) as a virtual monopoly to itself, etc. If you look at USA Xbox was pretty competitive when it had no right to be, starting from scratch. I believe the only factor in Xbox success was power (this is what GC lacked by comparison).
If people really believe power is so far down the list of concerns for the average gamer..then Xbox would have never outsold the NGC and carved out the niche that it did.
The average joe asks "Is it better than xbox360" without knowing what he means by that "better".
- Should I get the xbox, is it better than the PS2?
- Yes, it's a bit more powerful. The games usually do look a bit better on it
- Yes, but is it better?
- It's has some newer tech and the HD, so yes, you're getting "more" with your money
- But is it better?
- It's got some very good games, you'll have to look at the games library and see if they are for you.
- Is better?
- The multiplatform games in most cases look a bit better on xbox.
- Multiplatform? I don't play platform games, I want F1, hockey and rally games.
- Well, then you better get the PS2
- But is it better?
That's actually more or less a conversation I've had with my big brother a couple of times.
He still hasn't bought a console, even though the xbox has been dead cheap (€99 with a game for some time already vs. PS2 €169), but is still playing with my old PS (not PSOne) he "borrowed" from me when I bought my PS2.
- Should I get the xbox, is it better than the PS2?
- Yes, it's a bit more powerful. The games usually do look a bit better on it
- Yes, but is it better?
- It's has some newer tech and the HD, so yes, you're getting "more" with your money
- But is it better?
- It's got some very good games, you'll have to look at the games library and see if they are for you.
- Is better?
- The multiplatform games in most cases look a bit better on xbox.
- Multiplatform? I don't play platform games, I want F1, hockey and rally games.
- Well, then you better get the PS2
- But is it better?
That's actually more or less a conversation I've had with my big brother a couple of times.
He still hasn't bought a console, even though the xbox has been dead cheap (€99 with a game for some time already vs. PS2 €169), but is still playing with my old PS (not PSOne) he "borrowed" from me when I bought my PS2.
Last edited by a moderator:
sonyps35 said:
Please don't mistake what you take into account when buying a console, and what people take into account. Many people here make that mistake. It might come as a surprise to you, but it's obvious that what you think is not what the majority of other people think, the millions that bought technically inferior systems for a decade now.
The xbox outsold the GC because of that little baby called Halo. And even then, it's not like it outsold it by much.
If power was the first priority, then things would have worked very differently not only with PS2 generation, but also the PS1 generation. It's really quite logical in the end, we have sales numbers to prove it.
sonyps35 said:
I thought you do, actually.
It's like saying that every PC gamer wants a dual double-core CPU, quad SLI sytem loaded with Raptors and with a terabyte of RAM, otherwise he wouldn't touch it.
Power is partly important, but related to pricing and the choice of games etc. I'd go so far to say that the power in itself is the LEAST important factor.
rabidrabbit said:
that sounds more like what I hear when casuals talk about consoles.
I actually stay out of those conversations and just listen as trying to explain the pros and cons of each system (from my perspective) could take weeks considering the accumulation of knowledge that I have from reading about it all the time.
contrast that to most people who go by hearsay, (that's right.... IMO they get their info from what their friends tell them
).... and "but is it better?" is very common to hear without them ever knowing how to truly quantify 'better'. london-boy said:
I disagree with that.
First off, only about 20% of Xbox owners have Halo. 22-23% have Halo 2. So 75-80% of Xbox owners weren't influenced by Halo. The real saving grace of the Xbox wasn't Halo, it was Splinter Cell. Splinter Cell was the game that proved a high quality 3rd party game could sell very well on the Xbox, and once 3rd party developers had that proof many more of them were willing to support the Xbox system. That increased support led to a larger and higher quality game library, which resulted in more consumer support.
Second, the GC had Nintendo's "big three." Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. Certainly those 3 mega-franchises should have easily been able to counter Halo. I mean, you are basically suggesting that Master Chief is more popular than Mario, Link, and Samus combined.
And I think you are the first person I've heard that claimed that 25+% more systems sold isn't outselling your competition by much.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's an incorrect analysis of the statistics. Halo created a lot of buzz for the OMG LAN PARTY appeal of Xbox. Personally speaking, the idea of Halo LAN definitely influenced me to purchase the machine, although I ended up getting Crimson Skies instead. Halo 2 likewise created a lot of OMG GRAPHICS and OMG LIVE buzz. Buzz for a game can influence sales of hardware beyond the actual sales of the game.Powderkeg said:
IMO, Xbox beat Cube because of Live (helped Xbox tons) and Connectivity (hurt Cube immeasurably). If Nintendo had taken the Cube online, it might have been a completely different story.
According to Wikipedia, GC = 20.85 million sold, XB = 24 million. That's 3 million, or 1/7th more than GC, or about 15%. I don't consider that outselling them by much. Of course, the definition of much is very subjective. 3 million units certainly is a 'much' figure! But relative to impact, I don't think it's a large enough figure to woo devs away from GC and onto XB, so it probably isn't much by financial considerations or impact on the masses.Powderkeg said:
But I agree with you on Mario. That's got to be a bigger franchise than anything that's appeared on XB. One might argue though that Mario sold 20 million GCs, whereas Halo or any other XB franchise only sold a few million XBs, and it was the non-uber-franchise games that sold the rest.
fearsomepirate said:
And I have a lot of trouble believing that LAN capabilities convinced more than a few thousand people to buy the system.
Here is a counter to that arguement...
Xbox sales December 2003 (1 year before Halo 2 launch) = 1,122,000
Xbox sales December 2004 (2 weeks after Halo 2 launch) = 1,044,000
If the Halo franchise was so popular and so influential in Xbox sales then why were sales higher a year before Halo 2 was released than the month following the release of Halo 2?
IMO, the Xbox beat the Cube because the Xbox had more games that appealed to a wider audience. The Cube simply didn't have anything to offer to non-Nintendo fans.
Shifty Geezer said:
Wikipedia, always the most reliable source of info. (That's sarcasm)
Nintendo GameCube: 20.85 Million as of March 31, 2006
Microsoft Xbox: 24 Million as of December 31, 2005
It was very nice of you to give Nintendo those 3 extra months to add to their sales figures without counting MS's.
sumdumyunguy
Newcomer
RobertR1 said:
For Joe Gamer this is the truth. I think a lot of people are going to be dissapointed by PS3 sales. 600 bucks for just the box. Now I get to spend more money just to buy the first game, 2nd controller etc!
If memory serves last X-mas the US average spent was like 8 to 900 dollars PERIOD.
Joe Parents standing in Wally World looking at 7 bills (with tax) will see the Wii looking mighty damn good.
There is a big difference for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox#Market_share
Also the new Zelda will come out for the GC (think about how much a bundle could sell), whereas Xbox is dead.
In addition to the discussion:
That's why Sony can ask for more for its products just like Apple does.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
