[TheGame]

*sigh*

I fell victim to a timed out connection... after spending 40+ minutes writing a reply. So, I have decided that this will be my last reply. I'll let you have the last word in this topic. I would have kept going, but damn, a disconnect like that really can break the spirt.

Anyway, just for the hell of it I'm going to start from the last quote in your post and work my way up to the first.

Which one, this: "And I repeat yet again, a main factor, not the only factor..."

Or this: "timing, pricing, hardware features, and games equally"

What is the difference? They mean the same thing. Quit looking for a contradiction where there isn't one. You agreed with me when I said it's not the only factor, in both quotes you gave of mine I express how it's not the only factor. So what is your point?

Looks to me like you have none. In both of my quotes Games are listed both as one of the main factors, and not the only factor. So what are you trying to say?

And have you checked out how many people own GTA3, Sakura Wars, Metal Gear Solid, and Madden? Like GBA, there are ALOT of games out, and unfortunately only a select few get all the sales. What console tops nearly every sales chart (besides GBA)? Too many units amongst a dozen games, while the rest suffer.

What is your point? Millions of Ps2's sell, and 7 games are sold per system sold, while Millions of GBAs are sold and a horrible 2 games are sold for each unit sold. GBA has nothing in common with Ps2 in that sense.

Also, your reply has NOTHING to do what you quoted. I'm starting to think you are losing your mind. What does GBA, GTA3, Metal Gear Solid, or Madden have to do with DC's or Ps2's launch in Japan??? Maybe you should read what I write instead of going off base so much.

Ps2 ships more hardware at launch, Ps2's attach rate is less than one game sold for every system sold, Ps2 still manages to sell more hardware than Dreamcast month to month. Why? That's all you needed to answer, plain and simple.

We are debating about what factor moves console sales... or did you forget?

In Ps2's case games didn't move jack hit (with a capatal 'S')... DVD's sold the hardware. If you deny it, give good reason.

Have you seen the game sales of GBA? There's not one top-ten that doesn't include a GBA game that lists it as a console. The attach rate isn't well for the same reason as PSX- too many bloody games, though favorites like Golden Sun, Castlevania, etc help and move even more GBA's (like that horrible outbreak we call Pokemon).

Too many games would equal a much better attach rate, too few games would mean a much worse attach rate. So what the hell are you talking about? If there were a million games that were good for GBA, the attach Rate would be much higher, maybe even past what Ps2's attach rate is.

Ps2 had weak, and very few games at launch in Japan, but that's no excuse for the hardware to be outselling the software. If GBA had too many games, owners would own more games, but they dont.

Once again, this quality depends on mass opinion in that area. Alot of Famitsu scores that are very bad in Japan end up with big press over here and vice-versa.

Once again your reply has nothing to do with nothing. I was talking about US alone when I said AC's scores ranged from 8.5 all the way down to 3.0. Two US reviewers can disagree, just like two Japanese reviewers can disagree. But the game sales (or lack there of) is the vote by the fans on which games they consider to be quality or not. Japan is basically voting out pretty much all US comers as not being quality.

and for the 50th damn time, give me a better reason than my bias theory... if you are trying to disprove it give another theory. Because simply pooring out excuses for why I'm wrong without you knowing the true answer isn't helping.

This is almost as pointless as debating about religion, one guy has a belief, and the other can't disprove it, so the first guy will still continue to believe in that he thinks the answer is until there is a better answer given. Which there isn't.

Good point; but a popular game is still GOOD to whoever buys it- being "quality" to them. Gundam isn't nowhere near quality in my eyes, but I assure you the Japanese market will beg to differ.

Yeah, just like Halo is quality in my eyes and Japenese gamers would beg to differ... well, maybe not the few people who acctually gave the game a chance.

Good point- which also aludes to mine; more Xbox games that CATER to the Japanese audience will sell the console, since it's all on opinion anyway- regardless of it being an American-made console.

You still don't understand, it wouldn't sell AS good as it would if it were released on GCN or Ps2. Because Xbox is american made.

I remember watching a show of g4tv, they were trying to pursuade Japanese gamers to buy Xboxes. It was pretty funny, because thier perception of Xbox was FAR from the truth. They thought it was basically the size of a tower computer, and that it had no games. Half the people dissing on Xbox never played it, and when they did thier opinions switched rather quick.

Not random when games sell in the excess of 1 million+ units. Next

Not random? What are you talking about? You can't possibly be a fan of every game the sells 1 million or more copies. If you are, more power to ya, but I'm not. I think sales have nothing to do with quality in my eyes. Only quality in the plublic eyes. So yes, quality IS random, depending on the person buying the game... and a million persons treasure can also be a million people's trash. Just a fact of life. For everything you dislike, there is a person out there who likes it.

And if this recognition was the case, then every Tecmo/Capcom and Sega game would've sold just as well on Xbox as they have on PS2/GCN in Japan. Hardly true. Next.

No they wouldn't. Because Xbox is an American made console... haven't I been saying this the whole damn time? Unless somthing is wildly popular (which origanal Sega games and Tecmo/Capcom aren't) it would move Xboxes. But any game from a good developer just won't sell by the boat load on Xbox because of the bias.

You are making it sound like I said popular games on Xbox would sell just as much as they would on Ps2/GCN in Japan. No they wouldn't. No matter how you look at it, in Japan they would never live up to thier full game sell potential if it was an Xbox exclusive.

Yes, more popular games could help the box, but it wouldn't help them as much as passing up Nintendo or even coming close to Ps2.

You didn't answer my question: NAME ONE; one console that had overall poor selection of games/quality and SUCCEEDED.

Didn't I just explain how that is all opinion based? *shoots dead horse*

Anyway, are you talking about by my standards, or by reveiwer's standards, Or by the thing I allready threw out as a factor in my opinion on a game, sales?

Bad planning, and spending going on with foreign relations, or did you know that? Sega sold more than enough consoles for profit, yet they weren't making any, even with all the software sales on top of that. Sega was still in the hole- no two ways about it.

PS2 could've not released and Sega would still be in the same trouble they're in now, like it or not- there isn't a single publication that agrees with you on this one.

If what you say is true (which it damn-sure isn't), why the hell were games still selling oodles after PS2's launch UNTIL Sega went bankrupt?

Where are you getting this BS? Is it time for me to bring in links?

"All hope is not lost for the Dreamcast platform, however. Bellfield explained that "We're not giving up on Dreamcast. We'll continue to support the platform well into the next 18 months, and beyond that, as long as it is profitable." Now that Sega is moving out of the costly hardware business, this should prove to be a tricky proposition, as the system's limited install base will undoubtedly limit sales potential for new software."
http://dreamcast.ign.com/articles/090/090854p1.html

So if it wasn't profitable, why not leave it alone?

"Here's what went wrong, according to Sega. Previously, game consoles were sold on the oft-publicized razor principle, where you sell the razor at or below cost and make all your money selling blade cartridges. Similarly, one used to sell game systems at or below cost and make all the money back on software. According to Sega, this strategy didn't work with Dreamcast as the hardware cost was too high. Furthermore, the company was forced to discount the price of its hardware in order to remain competitive, which further added to the problem. Combine this with a difficult software market, and the Dreamcast business model was not able to meet the required returns in software for balancing out hardware sales."
http://dreamcast.ign.com/articles/090/090862p1.html

And that has what to do with thier past?

Depending on which industry analyst you believe, Sega has sold somewhere between 3.9 and 4.5 million Dreamcasts in North America, falling well short of their goal of 7.5 units by March 2001. The price drop is a likely occurrence in light of Sega's plans to cease traditional Dreamcast production and focus on licensing Dreamcast technology to set-top manufacturers such as Pace Micro Technology, with whom Sega confirmed a partnership earlier this week."
http://dreamcast.ign.com/articles/090/090796p1.html

Fell short of goal, like I said

Ok, understand? Sega isn't Microsoft, so they can't handle the losses, but the fact is Sega had enough money to make a console, and have it survive if it reaches thier sales forecasts... which Dreamcast didn't. So please, stop making other false excuses for Sega flopping. The reason it flopped is because the hardware sales didn't reach the goals, no matter how well software was doing. Period.

Then what was keeping the damn thing afloat after it launched? Hardware sales of itself only, and NO GAMES? Does the DC not have more console sales now than that of Nintendo and Microsoft worldwide?

Elaborate, especially since the only thing that killed DC was Sega's own failures with the Saturn and other financial issues internally.

Read above... if hardware sales would have stayed good enough, Sega would still be competing.

You're not even agreeing with yourself, let alone with me. WTF?

What the hell? Now you are pissing me off. I said games aren't the only factor. Right? I gave an example of how games aren't the only factor. Right? So how the hell am I disagreeing with myself?

And numbers are still numbers. How do you figure GCN had an "advantage" if both Xbox and GameCube sold the same amount during GCN's head start in Japan, and Xbox's head start in the UK? Sounds pretty even to me...

You have bad logic, maybe that's why it sounds even. It got the same lead, yes, but GCN was released at a time in UK where it would be easy to dig out of the hole it was in... while Xbox in Japan was released at a time where it would be much harder to dig out of thier hole.

"Don't count"? This isn't some fourth-grade football game; you wanna set rules for a debate now?

Seriously, DC still was the DOMINANT console- no if's and's or but's about it.

LMAO, you make no sense. I say it doesn't count because it's a head start, period. Ps2 has a head start, but it's still domanant because it has not ONCE fell behing GCN or Xbox in sales. DC was not dominant because from the day Ps2 was launched Ps2 sold more month to month and week to week.

If domanance isn't dominating the head up comptition from the later competitior's release date, then GBA and Psx are dominating in sales right now.

Yes it did; and your install base=more sales pose ends right there; regardless of PS2 outselling DC in hardware, the software still remained high until well after Sega's departure from console manufacturing-FACT.

hahaha... you are killing me man. Your statement shows exactly how important game sales are anyway. Also, aren't we talking about what drives hardware sales? DC may have had better games are better selling games, but did that save them? Nope.

Also, DC had a bigger install base, but it wasn't selling faster. So my bigger install base=more sales pose remains. There were more DC's in homes, so more DC games sold. But great games didn't save the system from folding at the hands of Ps2.

And I'll say this again, since you seemed to avoid it: What First-person game has sold well in Japan, regardless of who developed it?

I dunno... what popular Japanese developer made a great FPS?

Read above; and once again think about Fifa's performance, Crossgate, and [insert Disney game here] that are made by US design teams or published by a US publisher.

Sports games will appeal to any country because every country has sports. I'm not going to look at Madden 2003's sales in Japan because American football isn't a native sport of thiers.

Also, you are talking about games that have a popular licence to begin with. Where is the origanal US content with no pre-popular licence that sells well in Japan?

Moreso than the fact that they are actually good (to the Japanese audience, anyways)? Why didn't Orta sell oodles in Japan based on this, yet Tecmo sold better with DOA3?

If Tao Feng is released in Japan, the game will probably get decent sales (being a fighter, and a decent one- which sell well in that area)...

Wel'll have to wait and see what happens. As for your example, PDO didn't sell well anywhere. Maybe people just didn't consider it to be a good game.

And if you look at the sales charts during that time, copies of Tekken Tag went right off the shelves with it.

I'll say this again: GAMES.

3/5 of Ps2 owners had one game, ONE game, may that be Ridge Racer, or Tekken Tag. But of course DVD sales went up during the time, because that was the reason for the plublic buying the PS2 in the first place. Tekken was fliying about as far as a Chicken.

So you aren't sure? Or do you know for a fact XenoSaga sold well in Japan because of an oversight? Link?

lol, if there was NO confusion why would every preview, and most reviews have to say it over and over again that the game doesn't have anything to do with Xenogears? Hell, I was about to buy the game because I loved Xenogears.

I'll say this again, look at Crossgate, Fifa/World Cup, Gundam, etc...Bandai definately isn't a great name per-se; same with EA in Japan. Yet, the games sell. This is nowhere near "simple" and it has alot more to do with how good or bad the game is in that market as opposed to who made the damn thing. If Midway made a Gundam game and shipped it to Japan, do you really think it WON'T sell well?

A great licence can push any developer far... and I allready touched on Fifa. Microsoft could develop Pokemon Black and Green for GBA and people would buy it. In this case it's all about the licence.

Now, like I said before, where is the origanal US content to sell well in Japan?

Who said anything about "fresh new developers"? My whole point is that Xbox doesn't have as many games that work well in Japan as GCN/PS2 do, and IF IT DID, the console would sell well there, regardless of this "bias" you claim is the dominant force. Crossgate, a MMORPG/RTS hybrid is doing stellar in Japan; but it's by a US developer, though published by Enix. There are too many variables to even declare bias as being real.

Bottom line: If the games were on Xbox, they will sell, not "they aren't selling because the audience is biased", but eh...

If the popular franchise game is on PS2 it will sell well, if the game is on GCN it would just sell, and if the game is on Xbox it will sell a lot less than it could have.

OK, you wanna keep exaggerating. Explain how Animal Leader sold NOTHING in Japan, yet coming from the same company, and was released TWICE (N64/GCN). Animal Forest/Crossing, on the other hand, sold fairly well in Japan on N64 as well as it's GCN sequel. Both are by Nintendo, are they not? Legend of Dragoon wasn't that hot in Japan either, yet it rocked the USA, regardless of being primarily developed internally at SCEA.

Find an excuse for those.

You find an excuse....use common sense. What was N64 going up against at the time of it's release? What other software titles was AL going up against at the time of it's release? Did it have more/less competition than AC on GCN? Did it have a harder time being noticed?

There is allways a reason.

That's not true; and you know that. Stop exaggerating, before I begin to name the flood of failures both companies have released.

ok, on GCN, name the flood of games released by Nintendo that got both bad reviews and bad sales.

Then by your excuse you just made, Nintendo shoud've still tanked in the UK even after the release of Smash DX, right? I mean, since you're basically blaming this on a second-now-first-party devver, surely the loss of Rare would've done them in.

It didn't. Care to explain why else Smash DX seems to be the only saving grace for GCN?

BTW, Rare didn't leave Nintendo until mid-September; so why was Xbox doing well until then, eh?

After the announcement Xbox sales pumped up, and GCN sales fell. GCN's only chance of a rebound got sold...


17956 characters! probably a personal record. Like I said before, the last word is all yours. I refuse to waste any more of my life in this topic.