[TheGame]

heh heh

Originally posted by Shadow Fox
In a word, YES. As a matter of fact, I've spent more than that on a console and one game (3DO and SSFII Turbo-$499, Neo Geo Silver and Magician Lord, $649, Sega Saturn and Shinobi, $449). What good is an HD if I don't NEED it to play games (only to save some, barring Blinx)? Your point is no more valid than mine.

Since you brought in the Japan equation, every last one of those people looking for the better experience could've also gotten a Panasonic Q with better DVD playback/options than both Xbox and PS2. If this was still the case, the "better hardware features" would've made the Q an easy favorite in Japan, and it might have even come stateside. Instead, both the Q and Xbox are suffering in sales there- hardly an advantage.[/b]

I purchased a Sega saturn too... that's the last time I spend that much on a console.

As for Panisonic Q... do you remember me saying a little thing called timing?

True, alot of people bought a PS2 as a DVD player, at first, mainly because the launch was so lackluster (c'mon, THREE games?). Also, like you and I knew, many folks got that PS2 because they knew there would soon be a plethera of titles for it just as its precursor the PSX.

Nice point you're making, but the fact of the matter is only people in Japan would have this issue then (many people in the US and elsewhere have had DVD players since 2000). Even now there are more affordable DVD players in japan for less than $99, and if this was an issue, a GameCube and a real DVD player is just as cheap as a PS2 or Xbox, and was even cheaper before the system pricecuts this year.[/b]Yes it does, but you are going against this very ideal by saying price has more to do with things, when it's really totally random as a factor.

Err, timing yet again.... Timing and price are equal factors... in 2012 if sombody released a console with DVD playback on it, it wouldn't effect sales half as much as it did Ps2 at launch... Why? Ps2 was released at a time where DVDs were blowing up.

Get this- not everyone buys a console as a DVD player, but everyone buys a console for games.

No, not true... I have plently of little cousins who have Ps2s... why? Well they want the games. But who bought the system? Not them... thier parents did. Why? The DVD player.

Now, that kills your point alone... like I said before, for some the DVD player is the main fuction of the system, AND the reason why they purchased one.

And people wonder why Nintendo is losing thier main market

Kids don't buy consoles, parents do, if Nintendo were to make games to appeal to kids, why not make the console appeal to the parents as much as Ps2?

There are many people in the world who flopped out $200-$300 to please thier kids AND buy a DVD player. Not EVERY person in the world buys a system with the intent of playing games... well, not anymore.

I never said those wouldn't affect whether someone would purchase a console or not- I said it wasn't what it was all about, which it isn't; those only play a small role, whereas the games themselves hoist the majority of the decision.Actually I'd buy it, and I wouldn't be alone. Why? What was before DC? N64? PSX? Dreamcast was a great leap over those two, and was well worth the money for the expansive list of games (and hacks) developed for it.[/b]

I said if it were released fall 2001, along side GCN and Xbox, priced at $200, and with the same launch games it had in 1999.... you would buy it? You need a drug test.

Even compared to the PS2, the graphics are very crisp, and the DC even has a cleaner antialiasing scheme...

yeah yeah, the fact is Madden 2001 looked better than any DC game EVER released... and it was technically superior to any DC game ever released... and it was a launch title.

I'm not trying to hear all that BS about AA, the fact is Ps2 games looked and animated better, period.

BTW, GCN and Xbox aren't exactly new technology, either- both consoles have parts in them dating back as far as 1999.

If the games look better, the games look better, period. That's the only judge of power. I could care less about on paper, it's all about on screen.

Once again, I never said it didn't make a difference, I said it wasn't all about pricing.

If you could get an Xbox the way it is now, for 100 bucks, would you get one? Hell yes. But what if the Xbox, at that price, had not a single game that interested you in the least? Would you buy an Xbox for 130 just to use it as a DVD player?

Invalid...

here's the quote from me again:

"it's about timing, pricing, hardware features, and games equally"

The poin't I'm trying to make is that if any one of those four categories is insanely off track, people won't buy the console. Name a console that has failed and it was leading any generation in all four of these categories.

Hell, the n00b Xbox is passing up GCN because GCN is more of track in these four ways than Xbox.

It's whether or not a console is all about the games- you are way off track here.I'll just close with this: PS2 has games. Lots of games, and a head start with a few very good games. Guess what, Game, that's THE MAIN REASON why they bought their consoles, end of story.

no, it isn't...

1) Timing: Ps2 came out a year before competition, and DC completly dropped out of the race by the 5th month of Ps2's life. You may not believe it, but there were people in the world who purchased a Ps2 instead of waiting because they couldn't wait. If GCN and Xbox were out earlier in Ps2's life, they could have stolen more initial sales than they are stealing now.

2) Hardware features: Ps2, out the origanal box, simply has more features than GCN and Xbox. DVD Player and PsOne... and if I go any further I get into:

3) Pricing: On Ps2 you don't have to buy the new accessories... and Ps2... and hell, Sony can chose what they want Xbox and GCN to be priced at. Because of the head start... which gets back into timing. Also, for that period, the cheapest next-gen system that you could get that was consoderd "alive" was $300, so it had a great price advantage over the competition

4) Games: Ps2 basically stayed good enough to be purchased for it's first year, with games like Tekken, Madden, GT3, etc... then when competition came, Sony stepped up it's game.

To sum it up, Sony's timing gave Sony the lead in sales... Sony's timing also gave SOny more freedom with Pricing because they could sell the system for less and still make a profit While competition. Sony also threw in a DVD player, to make thier system valuable even IF the games were weak. But the games weren't weak, and they only got better and better... so in the end, Sony steals the most sales.

It's not all about games, but games are a key factor. I know people who even purchased a DC because of timing. Like myself and DsH... neither of us feel that DC's lineup was all that great, but what else was there to buy?

Games=big factor, but not the only factor...

1. If a System had no good games for it you wouldn't buy it
2. If a system was priced at $2000 you wouldn't buy it
3. If a system is released at the wrong time, you wouldn't buy it
4. If a system had weak hardware features... (let's say, no memory cards or hard drive, on a CD so you couldn't save the games) you wouldn't buy it...

Let's say a mix of any two of these things would completly turn you off, if there is a mix of two things that wouldn't turn you off, like I said, you must be on crack.