Tendo City

Look, I know that you armchair gaming publishers think that you know more about marketing than the likes of Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony, but I'm sorry to report that you're very wrong about all of this. The PC is NOT in direct competition with ANY OTHER GAMING PLATFORM, therefor YOU CAN CALL DOOM 3 AN XBOX EXCLUSIVE. They are entirely different markets! The three home consoles are in their own separate market. They compete directly with each other, nothing else. The Gameboy Advance, for instance, does not compete with the PS2. The PSP does not compete with the Gamecube. The PC does not compete with any of the consoles because it is not in the same market!

Get this through your thick skulls.

dude you're so wrong it's not even funny.

Woah.

Well that's it for me! Can't deny that rebuttal!

There's nothing to 'rebutt'. You're taking an obscure opinion that marketing actually holds truth and then using it to stregthen another opinion that the PC isn't a gaming platform. Then you say "yes, it's a gaming platform." and turn right around and axclaim "But if a game is ported on to it, it doesn't make that game a multi-platform game." You're not making any sense and you have no valid argument for your opinion.

A game cannot be considered system exclusive if it's ported to another platform in its entirety. There is no opinion there, it is pure and simple fact.

I never once said that the PC isn't a gaming platform. To suggest that I did is pure nonsense. I said that the PC is in a different market from the home console market, just like the handheld market is separate from the home console market. There's nothing "obscure" about this opinion at all, it exists everywhere in the marketplace, and ask anyone from Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft and they will confirm what I have stated. This is why Microsft can label Doom 3 as an X-Box exclusive, and why Nintendo can label Yoshi's Island for the GBA as "ONLY FOR GAMEBOY ADVANCE", even though it has been available for the SNES for many years.

It's obvious that you know no more about this subject than ABF or DJ do, and your amazing rebuttal which consists of lying about what I said and saying "OMG you're WErong!!1" shows that you are talking out of your ass.

dude... the GBA and SNES have a gap of over ten years, we were talking about current gen systems and software and how that software is ported to other current gen gaming platforms.

If you want to believe marketing then I feel sorry for you. :D If i believed in marketing I wouldn't own a Gamcube. Just because a company tells you something doesn't mean it's true. They say Doom III is XBox exclusive so you buy IT instead of the PC version thinking that you'll get a better game. Companies try to blur the line between PC's and consoles because the gamers are so different and PC is a more involved process than consoles. PC gamers expect a ton of control over the options of the game, including full modding and patches. But consols will be there in the next few years so that line will disappear quickly.

Now, if i'm not mistaken, while Doom III on XBox lacks the modding capabilities of the PC version, it does have some exclusive levels, weapons or multiplayer options. Meaning that in fact the version on XBox is exclusive. In contrast, the PC version could (or already did) mod itself to have the exclusive levels, weapons or multiplayer options.

If that were to happen, to say that the version on XBox is still exclusive would be a mistake. As with saying that Halo is exclusive to XBox when in fact the exact same game exists on another gaming platform.

And thus ends my broadcast day in this thread.

Quote:Look, I know that you armchair gaming publishers think that you know more about marketing than the likes of Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony, but I'm sorry to report that you're very wrong about all of this. The PC is NOT in direct competition with ANY OTHER GAMING PLATFORM, therefor YOU CAN CALL DOOM 3 AN XBOX EXCLUSIVE. They are entirely different markets! The three home consoles are in their own separate market. They compete directly with each other, nothing else. The Gameboy Advance, for instance, does not compete with the PS2. The PSP does not compete with the Gamecube. The PC does not compete with any of the consoles because it is not in the same market!

Get this through your thick skulls.

EVERY platform is in competition with each other one! Of course!

Look, if there was truly no comparison, Microsoft wouldn't wait a year before releasing Halo on PC, or Fable. As I said, it's called limited exclusivity -- to get a lot of sales of the game on your platform, and then sell it on more platforms to make even more money. Simple.

Of course the GBA competes with the PS2. Or these days 'DS' might be more accurate... when last week 90,000 DSes sold in Japan, what do you think those people weren't buying? Yeah, that'd probably be at the cost of a few more PS2 games. You're no more right about how they are completely different markets than Nintendo is, and Nintendo is wrong (remember the whole "GC and PS2 are in different markets" thing? Just an extension of what you're saying here.).

Quote:There's nothing "obscure" about this opinion at all, it exists everywhere in the marketplace, and ask anyone from Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft and they will confirm what I have stated. This is why Microsft can label Doom 3 as an X-Box exclusive, and why Nintendo can label Yoshi's Island for the GBA as "ONLY FOR GAMEBOY ADVANCE", even though it has been available for the SNES for many years.

It's 100% a marketing label aimed at selling more units and 0% based on reality.

Sorry OB1, but of COURSE the PC is in competition with the consoles. Most people own consoles, not super beefed PCs, but for those with gaming quality machines, they often ARE pushed to buy a system because they can't get the PC version, or if the game is already on PC, they don't bother getting the console. Isn't that pretty much what defines competition in marketting?

Listen, I really don't care what the school may or may not say about this, because I have never been affected by a commercial, so I'm convinced marketting is gibberish for weak minded fools. The question is, under what real logic outside of "they were being honest about this, this isn't just a stunt" do you state that the PC market really is completely divorced from the console market? What can you say that gets me to ignore the many examples I've seen in forums, and personally, of people actually deciding where to put their money based on whether a game is available for PC or a console? It would have to be pretty compelling, that's all I have to say.

Quote:dude... the GBA and SNES have a gap of over ten years, we were talking about current gen systems and software and how that software is ported to other current gen gaming platforms.

I knew you'd say that, but it doesn't matter. Even if the GBA had come out in 1995 and Yoshi's Island had been ported over that very year, it would still have gotten that "only on GBA" sticker.

Quote:If you want to believe marketing then I feel sorry for you. If i believed in marketing I wouldn't own a Gamcube. Just because a company tells you something doesn't mean it's true. They say Doom III is XBox exclusive so you buy IT instead of the PC version thinking that you'll get a better game. Companies try to blur the line between PC's and consoles because the gamers are so different and PC is a more involved process than consoles. PC gamers expect a ton of control over the options of the game, including full modding and patches. But consols will be there in the next few years so that line will disappear quickly.

Now, if i'm not mistaken, while Doom III on XBox lacks the modding capabilities of the PC version, it does have some exclusive levels, weapons or multiplayer options. Meaning that in fact the version on XBox is exclusive. In contrast, the PC version could (or already did) mod itself to have the exclusive levels, weapons or multiplayer options.

If that were to happen, to say that the version on XBox is still exclusive would be a mistake. As with saying that Halo is exclusive to XBox when in fact the exact same game exists on another gaming platform.

And thus ends my broadcast day in this thread.

Now you're talking about listening to marketing to help decide what games to buy, which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about how these different platforms are considered to be (BY THE DAMN INDUSTRY) in separate markets and are NOT directly competiting with each other. This is not a matter of opinion because this is decided BY the games market.

Quote:EVERY platform is in competition with each other one! Of course!

Look, if there was truly no comparison, Microsoft wouldn't wait a year before releasing Halo on PC, or Fable. As I said, it's called limited exclusivity -- to get a lot of sales of the game on your platform, and then sell it on more platforms to make even more money. Simple.

Of course the GBA competes with the PS2. Or these days 'DS' might be more accurate... when last week 90,000 DSes sold in Japan, what do you think those people weren't buying? Yeah, that'd probably be at the cost of a few more PS2 games. You're no more right about how they are completely different markets than Nintendo is, and Nintendo is wrong (remember the whole "GC and PS2 are in different markets" thing? Just an extension of what you're saying here.).

In broad terms, the Gameboy Advance is also competing with the IPod, and even BOOKS, because they're all products trying to be sold as entertainment.

Quote:It's 100% a marketing label aimed at selling more units and 0% based on reality.

Of course it's about marketing, this entire situation is about marketing! The marketplace, the games industry, decides what is competiting with what. I don't give a shit if you think that PCs should be considered in the same market as home consoles. This is NOT a matter of opinion. This is decided BY THE MARKET.

Quote:Sorry OB1, but of COURSE the PC is in competition with the consoles. Most people own consoles, not super beefed PCs, but for those with gaming quality machines, they often ARE pushed to buy a system because they can't get the PC version, or if the game is already on PC, they don't bother getting the console. Isn't that pretty much what defines competition in marketting?

Listen, I really don't care what the school may or may not say about this, because I have never been affected by a commercial, so I'm convinced marketting is gibberish for weak minded fools. The question is, under what real logic outside of "they were being honest about this, this isn't just a stunt" do you state that the PC market really is completely divorced from the console market? What can you say that gets me to ignore the many examples I've seen in forums, and personally, of people actually deciding where to put their money based on whether a game is available for PC or a console? It would have to be pretty compelling, that's all I have to say.

DJ, all three of you have no idea what you are even talking about. When I say "marketing" all you understand is "advertisement", which shows your utter ignorance towards this subject.

All we are saying is the market already decided they are competing with each other. I say this based on the fact that, well, a lot of PC owners have decided to NOT get an XBox because they can get a lot of the XBox games on the PC. Is it not direct when people look at whether or not to buy a PC for gaming or a console in the same way they might look at whether to get DSL as opposed to Cable internet service? Perhaps it's closer to "should I stick with dialup or go to broadband", but I would say it's pretty direct.

What makes you think it's so indirect? What makes you assume they are in different markets and that PC gamers would actually think to themselves "hey, Doom 3 on the XBox, exclusive? I should get an XBox!".

The only people who do that are hardcore PC gamers. Hardcore PC games make up an incredibly tiny fraction of the home console market. Markets are defined by two things, to greatly simplify this for you: 1) the target audience, and 2) the actual buying audience. These two things constantly fluctuate, but in the gamings market it is relatively stable and in unison. With the DS, Nintendo is trying to cater to a different market than their Gameboy or Gamecube. That's why they call it a "third-pillar". In this case the target audience is not in unison with the actual buying audience. So far. E3 will hopefully change our minds about this.

If the home console market were the same as the PC market then I would be a very, very happy man. It would make things much easier for me. But it's not, because they cater to (mostly) very different audiences (markets).

Now if that's what you are saying I can agree with a lot of that, but it's not exactly black and white there. Fact is, more than the amount you assume are affected by what system a game is available on.

Here is the comment that started it all. You basically said that SC3's best version was on the XBox, which I quickly followed up on by saying the real best version is the PC version. You said that "didn't count", which at first I thought was a joke, but it now seems you actually have decided that you HAVE to consider it the best version because the marketting tells you so. Well, screw that. Just remember, there's a reason console and PC games are, more and more these days, being released on PC as well as every other console at the same time. The two seperate tastes are a lot more blended than you think or they wouldn't even bother.

Quote:Now if that's what you are saying I can agree with a lot of that, but it's not exactly black and white there. Fact is, more than the amount you assume are affected by what system a game is available on.

Like I said, I greatly simplified it for you. Marketing is... very boring. You don't want me to go into detail.

Quote:Here is the comment that started it all. You basically said that SC3's best version was on the XBox, which I quickly followed up on by saying the real best version is the PC version. You said that "didn't count", which at first I thought was a joke, but it now seems you actually have decided that you HAVE to consider it the best version because the marketting tells you so. Well, screw that. Just remember, there's a reason console and PC games are, more and more these days, being released on PC as well as every other console at the same time. The two seperate tastes are a lot more blended than you think or they wouldn't even bother.

*sigh*

You're still not paying attention. Yes, the PC version of Splinter Cell is the best version of the game, but it "doesn't count" in the context of our conversation, which was the merits of the X-Box. The X-Box has the best versions of almost all third-party games, and you don't compare it to the PC versions for the reasons I explained above. If you still cannot understand this then oh well, I tried to educate you.

Quote:I knew you'd say that, but it doesn't matter. Even if the GBA had come out in 1995 and Yoshi's Island had been ported over that very year, it would still have gotten that "only on GBA" sticker.

And it'd have been just as absurd.

Quote:Now you're talking about listening to marketing to help decide what games to buy, which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about how these different platforms are considered to be (BY THE DAMN INDUSTRY) in separate markets and are NOT directly competiting with each other. This is not a matter of opinion because this is decided BY the games market.

The point is (I thought, anyway) that believing that they are different markets is believing that marketing, so DJ's point there is quite topical...

Quote:In broad terms, the Gameboy Advance is also competing with the IPod, and even BOOKS, because they're all products trying to be sold as entertainment.

True. I guess it depends on how you want to break things down... but there are really two questions here. On the 'porting' issue, it's impossible to port a videogame to a book. The result is a completely different product. But on the 'competition' front, yeah, in the broadest sense everything that you can spend your money on is in competition... saying that one type of that is completely seperate and has no connection to another is kind of silly. What you can say is that you are targetting your product for a different market from other products... which certainly is sometimes true, but in the case of games usually not to the degree that a company like Nintendo seems to want to believe.

Quote:DJ, all three of you have no idea what you are even talking about. When I say "marketing" all you understand is "advertisement", which shows your utter ignorance towards this subject.

Just proving again how bad you are at understanding what others are saying.

Quote:The only people who do that are hardcore PC gamers. Hardcore PC games make up an incredibly tiny fraction of the home console market.

Definitely not. Sure, console game sales are higher than PC sales. But PCs have a broader overall base, or at least the potential for one... after all, most people have a computer. Only people who want to play games have an X-Box. So while I'd expect that sales of Halo for X-Box are higher, don't think like only hardcore gamers would buy it for PC. Quite the opposite, probably... given that hardcore gamers are the most likely to want the game soon, they'd be more likely to get it for X-Box. I'd expect more of the PC sales would be from casual gamers interested because of how much press the game gets.

Quote:Markets are defined by two things, to greatly simplify this for you: 1) the target audience, and 2) the actual buying audience. These two things constantly fluctuate, but in the gamings market it is relatively stable and in unison. With the DS, Nintendo is trying to cater to a different market than their Gameboy or Gamecube. That's why they call it a "third-pillar". In this case the target audience is not in unison with the actual buying audience. So far. E3 will hopefully change our minds about this.

Nintendo is either deluding itsself or making things up. The DS is definitely in the same market as the GBA... the PSP? It's mostly in the same market but it also aims a bit older, in keeping with its Playstation philosophy. But there is no "special audience" for the DS. No more than there is for the GC in comparison to PS2 and X-Box.

Quote:If the home console market were the same as the PC market then I would be a very, very happy man. It would make things much easier for me. But it's not, because they cater to (mostly) very different audiences (markets).

Console things like controls over game sales, etc only matter to developers, not people buying the games... to them they just see boxes on the shelf, both for PC and consoles. The main difference is that since PCs are all different you need to look at the system requirements. But yes, the groups consoles and PCs aim at are different, in some ways... the PC audience has more casual gamers who don't usually play games (The Sims, etc), while consoles have more casual gamers (that is people who do usually play games but can't be called 'hardcore')... but both are part of the game industry and games released on one platform DO affect all of them. Saying that they do not, or that they are distinctly different to the point where it is pointless to compare them, is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Like here.

Quote:*sigh*

You're still not paying attention. Yes, the PC version of Splinter Cell is the best version of the game, but it "doesn't count" in the context of our conversation, which was the merits of the X-Box. The X-Box has the best versions of almost all third-party games, and you don't compare it to the PC versions for the reasons I explained above. If you still cannot understand this then oh well, I tried to educate you.

Saying "no, a different version of the game is better" when someone else says "this is one of the reasons to buy an X-Box over the other systems" is a completely appropriate response. Unquestionably, and beyond any doubt.

We were talking about exclusives. You said Splinter Cell was one. DJ disagreed, saying it's better on PC. You said 'well yes, but that doesn't matter because we're talking about consoles'... but it's the same exact game! It was designed for all systems! Saying that one version doesn't count simply because of the platform it is on is completely absurd... sure, the PC and console markets don't draw from all of the same people. But the games are the same, and lots of people (among hardcore gamers) use both pcs and consoles for games... so saying 'that version doesn't count' is just ridiculous. Of course you can compare the PC version. I can't think of any possible way that DJ's comment is an innapropriate response to yours.

I won't even start on the "education" comment at the end there. Suffice to say, it's just OB1 once again showing himself to believe that he is the perfect one who cannot be wrong and all who disagree with him are fools who must be taught the Way... it gets very old, very fast.

Sure, you might have some good points about marketing. But trying to expand that to the point where you are trying to say that you are unquestionably right about everything is ridiculous.

Quote:And it'd have been just as absurd.

Your opinion on this is irrelevant. I'm talking about the reasons behind such actions and why they make sense to all of the publishers. The opinions of some hardcore gamers doesn't matter in the reality of this situation. There are dozens of things that we as hardcore gamers see as foolish, sometimes warranted, sometimes not. In this case, it may seem ridiculous but there is logic behind it if you know all of the facts.

Quote:The point is (I thought, anyway) that believing that they are different markets is believing that marketing, so DJ's point there is quite topical...

There's nothing about "belief" here. The market is decided by two things, like I said: the target audience and the actual buying audience. We, as consumers, are the reason why the markets are separated like this. The general consumer public. You're confusing the terms I'm using with advertising for some reason.

Quote:True. I guess it depends on how you want to break things down... but there are really two questions here. On the 'porting' issue, it's impossible to port a videogame to a book. The result is a completely different product. But on the 'competition' front, yeah, in the broadest sense everything that you can spend your money on is in competition... saying that one type of that is completely seperate and has no connection to another is kind of silly. What you can say is that you are targetting your product for a different market from other products... which certainly is sometimes true, but in the case of games usually not to the degree that a company like Nintendo seems to want to believe.

That is when those two things I mentioned are not in unison. Nintendo wants to target a specific audience and think one way, but then their expectations are not met. Nintendo is definitely the biggest risk-taker out of all the big publishers though, which is why they aren't on target as often.

Quote:Just proving again how bad you are at understanding what others are saying.

That didn't make a lick of sense. What I said is true: DJ (and you and lazy) are confusing my marketing speach with advertising. These are not always the same thing, but you associate the word "marketing" with "ads" so you don't understand what I am talking about.

Quote:Definitely not. Sure, console game sales are higher than PC sales. But PCs have a broader overall base, or at least the potential for one... after all, most people have a computer. Only people who want to play games have an X-Box. So while I'd expect that sales of Halo for X-Box are higher, don't think like only hardcore gamers would buy it for PC. Quite the opposite, probably... given that hardcore gamers are the most likely to want the game soon, they'd be more likely to get it for X-Box. I'd expect more of the PC sales would be from casual gamers interested because of how much press the game gets.

What does that have to do with what I said...

I said that hardcore PC gamers take up a tiny fraction of the home console market.

Quote:Nintendo is either deluding itsself or making things up. The DS is definitely in the same market as the GBA... the PSP? It's mostly in the same market but it also aims a bit older, in keeping with its Playstation philosophy. But there is no "special audience" for the DS. No more than there is for the GC in comparison to PS2 and X-Box.

Right now that is for the most part true, yes. And like I said above, that's the who parts not agreeing with each other.

But from everything that I've been hearing, Nintendo will show off products at E3 that will make it much more possible for the DS to be a true third-pillar, and co-exist with even a new Gameboy. Games like Nintendogs are supposed to attract an audience that rarely plays games, like women and non-gamers.

Quote:Console things like controls over game sales, etc only matter to developers, not people buying the games... to them they just see boxes on the shelf, both for PC and consoles. The main difference is that since PCs are all different you need to look at the system requirements. But yes, the groups consoles and PCs aim at are different, in some ways... the PC audience has more casual gamers who don't usually play games (The Sims, etc), while consoles have more casual gamers (that is people who do usually play games but can't be called 'hardcore')... but both are part of the game industry and games released on one platform DO affect all of them. Saying that they do not, or that they are distinctly different to the point where it is pointless to compare them, is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Like here.
Quote:
*sigh*

You're still not paying attention. Yes, the PC version of Splinter Cell is the best version of the game, but it "doesn't count" in the context of our conversation, which was the merits of the X-Box. The X-Box has the best versions of almost all third-party games, and you don't compare it to the PC versions for the reasons I explained above. If you still cannot understand this then oh well, I tried to educate you.

Saying "no, a different version of the game is better" when someone else says "this is one of the reasons to buy an X-Box over the other systems" is a completely appropriate response. Unquestionably, and beyond any doubt.

We were talking about exclusives. You said Splinter Cell was one. DJ disagreed, saying it's better on PC. You said 'well yes, but that doesn't matter because we're talking about consoles'... but it's the same exact game! It was designed for all systems! Saying that one version doesn't count simply because of the platform it is on is completely absurd... sure, the PC and console markets don't draw from all of the same people. But the games are the same, and lots of people (among hardcore gamers) use both pcs and consoles for games... so saying 'that version doesn't count' is just ridiculous. Of course you can compare the PC version. I can't think of any possible way that DJ's comment is an innapropriate response to yours.

I won't even start on the "education" comment at the end there. Suffice to say, it's just OB1 once again showing himself to believe that he is the perfect one who cannot be wrong and all who disagree with him are fools who must be taught the Way... it gets very old, very fast.

Sure, you might have some good points about marketing. But trying to expand that to the point where you are trying to say that you are unquestionably right about everything is ridiculous.

You know ABF, if you would put aside that exorbitant ego of yours for just one moment you might actually learn something new.

What I'm saying about the different gaming markets is absolutely true. I have my own personal gamer's perspective just like the rest of you do, but I can also look beyond that and analyze the industry and markets more objectively than you guys seem to be able to, because I've studied marketing and have considerable knowledge about how the gaming market in particular works.

In this case, this one thing that started this entire debate, you can only see it from your very limited perspective, and refuse to learn a thing or two about marketing from me in order to broaden your perspective on this. It's your loss, and this is the last time I will try to explain this to you.

For me, and for DJ, Splinter Cell can be played on any system. We can choose from any of the versions of the game because we own all of the consoles as well as a powerful-enough PC. Basically, we are buyers in just about all the gaming markets. But that's irrelevant. And the reason for that is because not every consumer is a consumer of all of the gaming markets. If they were then there would be only one market! Think about it! This topic was about the merits of the X-Box, if the system has any worth or not. I said yes, because of all the exclusives and best multiconsole ports. DJ said not as much, because much of these multiconsole ports are better on the PC. This is true!!---however, they are in completely separate markets! To 95% of the buying public out there (that is, the people who don't have a powerful PC and all of the consoles), only one or two options are available. A person is not going to buy an X-Box instead of a PC or vice versa. This is one of the ways these markets are separated. If you still don't get this, then I'm not even going to bother replying to you. I've wasted enough time trying to teach you something.

Quote:Your opinion on this is irrelevant. I'm talking about the reasons behind such actions and why they make sense to all of the publishers. The opinions of some hardcore gamers doesn't matter in the reality of this situation. There are dozens of things that we as hardcore gamers see as foolish, sometimes warranted, sometimes not. In this case, it may seem ridiculous but there is logic behind it if you know all of the facts.

I stated said logic myself, you know. I said that it's stupid logic done just to sell more units. Sure, it's my opinion. But what's wrong with stating my opinion? I mean, it's obviously pretty silly to say a game is exclusive when it isn't. Attempting to fool people into thinking it is -- that is, to increase game sales and make more cash -- is the obvious reason why it's done. Sure, they use flimsy excuses like "stuff was added so it's "new", but they're about as weak as they sound...

Quote:There's nothing about "belief" here. The market is decided by two things, like I said: the target audience and the actual buying audience. We, as consumers, are the reason why the markets are separated like this. The general consumer public. You're confusing the terms I'm using with advertising for some reason.

Advertising is the main way that you target your market (to tell them what your product is and who it's best for). Well, of course first comes game design (and some other factors), and tailoring your game for the audience you are intending it for, but that's just as sales-oriented as marketing is (that is, they do what they think will sell the most units / make the most money), so the difference isn't that large.

That is, you design the product with some market in mind, do your best to make sure that market will like it, and then advertise in a way to attract that market to buy your product...

Quote:That is when those two things I mentioned are not in unison. Nintendo wants to target a specific audience and think one way, but then their expectations are not met. Nintendo is definitely the biggest risk-taker out of all the big publishers though, which is why they aren't on target as often.

Because Nintendo often doesn't do what the gaming audience wants, and it causes them problems... they think instead that they know better than gamers what gamers want. In recent times, they've been more off target than on, but it's led to some innovations too, so overall it's a good thing... and it makes them unique, at least. They're in it for the money as much as anyone but because of their approach at least they're unique in the way they go about it. But yes, it's problematic for their overall success.

Quote:What does that have to do with what I said...

I said that hardcore PC gamers take up a tiny fraction of the home console market.

Ah, I misinterpreted it a bit. But hardcore CONSOLE gamers make up a tiny fraction of the console market (number-of-people wise, money-wise it's more for both platforms), so that's not really saying anything... sure, there are pc gamers who don't play console games and console gamers who don't play pc games. But among the hardcore market, I'd think that most would play at least some games on PC. Perhaps they wouldn't buy lots of pc games, but something with mass popularity like Halo 1 (considering that it does have an additional feature in online play)? Much more likely (than some hardcore pc game).

Quote:Right now that is for the most part true, yes. And like I said above, that's the who parts not agreeing with each other.

But from everything that I've been hearing, Nintendo will show off products at E3 that will make it much more possible for the DS to be a true third-pillar, and co-exist with even a new Gameboy. Games like Nintendogs are supposed to attract an audience that rarely plays games, like women and non-gamers.

You mean aim more for the older audience, like PSP is? Stuff like the DS dictionary, pda-like utilities, etc that they've got in Japan? Nintendo can try, but it's a console... the DS can't escape that fact. And as a console the vast majority of its market is squarely in the traditional handheld market -- though perhaps it is expanding it a bit, I wouldn't think it'd be very significantly.

Quote:For me, and for DJ, Splinter Cell can be played on any system. We can choose from any of the versions of the game because we own all of the consoles as well as a powerful-enough PC. Basically, we are buyers in just about all the gaming markets. But that's irrelevant. And the reason for that is because not every consumer is a consumer of all of the gaming markets. If they were then there would be only one market! Think about it! This topic was about the merits of the X-Box, if the system has any worth or not. I said yes, because of all the exclusives and best multiconsole ports. DJ said not as much, because much of these multiconsole ports are better on the PC. This is true!!---however, they are in completely separate markets! To 95% of the buying public out there (that is, the people who don't have a powerful PC and all of the consoles), only one or two options are available. A person is not going to buy an X-Box instead of a PC or vice versa. This is one of the ways these markets are separated. If you still don't get this, then I'm not even going to bother replying to you. I've wasted enough time trying to teach you something.

Oh, I see what you're trying to say, OB1. I quite well understand your point. As I said, though, I just don't think it tells the whole story.

I guess the question is if we're talking about us or in general. If we're talking about us (the people here), DJ's point is completely valid and correct. And I'd expect that that's who we'd be talking about... I mean, DJ has an X-Box and a PC. So how is it possibly wrong to say that it's wrong to say that an inferior version of a game is a selling point for a system? Your point is only correct in a sphere that is irrelevant to the people involved in the discussion.

Oh yeah, and really, as I said, there is only one market... it's just broken up into categories. But it's really all one thing, of course. Yes, most people won't buy a console for one game, but some will, and they'll be taking money away from the other systems that they own... is there any more direct way that systems compete? Not likely. Sure, PCs are much more expensive, and gaming pcs especially, and that's probably one of the biggest reasons that pc games sell worse. But many of the games are the same, and many of the gamers buying those games are the same... The console and PC markets have differences, but they are not completely seperate. As I've been saying, there's a lot of overlap. Yes, most people won't buy that X-Box just for Halo. Or that new graphics card for their PC just to get Halo and play it online (even if they already own the X-Box version). But the ones that do prove that there is overlap.

Woah...

Well, I've said what I will about this and stand by that... I'll only add that as of yet OB1 hasn't shown any real evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that such a small number of people actually do this. Also, if the markets are so seperate, why ARE all these games being made for both PC and all 3 consoles exactly? If they really were such different markets, would it not be assumed that they would ONLY release a game for one or the other, and ignore porting altogether? Sorry, but how do you KNOW most people aren't making decisions like "should I get a PC or a game system?" even though I get that question like ALL THE TIME from people who don't know any better, the sorts of people who hire other people to clean spyware off their old machines.

I guess what I'm saying is a degree in marketing seems utterly meaningless. What exactly did they teach you there aside from basic economics?

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Woah...

Well, I've said what I will about this and stand by that... I'll only add that as of yet OB1 hasn't shown any real evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that such a small number of people actually do this. Also, if the markets are so seperate, why ARE all these games being made for both PC and all 3 consoles exactly? If they really were such different markets, would it not be assumed that they would ONLY release a game for one or the other, and ignore porting altogether? Sorry, but how do you KNOW most people aren't making decisions like "should I get a PC or a game system?" even though I get that question like ALL THE TIME from people who don't know any better, the sorts of people who hire other people to clean spyware off their old machines.

I guess what I'm saying is a degree in marketing seems utterly meaningless. What exactly did they teach you there aside from basic economics?

Who said anything about getting a degree in marketing? I've taken some marketing and business classes, yes, but I make my observations from the market itself and know a thing or two from my older brother Will who's in charge of a marketing firm (no that does not mean advertisements).

Your questions show that you still haven't grasped what it is that I said. Why port games to the PC if it's not in the same market as home consoles? Um, does that really make sense to you? That's like asking why bother releasing Splinter Cell for the DS? If anything, being in separate markets is more reason to port.

And as convincing as your whole "well I know some people who would rather get a PC instead of an XBOX! Right here, even!"" point is, the fact that you still don't even understand what I'm talking about when I refer to different markets shows that I should just give up on you right now. I've explained this in sufficient detail already and will not continue trying to explain this to you. So continue being ignorant about this subject.

Quote:I stated said logic myself, you know. I said that it's stupid logic done just to sell more units. Sure, it's my opinion. But what's wrong with stating my opinion? I mean, it's obviously pretty silly to say a game is exclusive when it isn't. Attempting to fool people into thinking it is -- that is, to increase game sales and make more cash -- is the obvious reason why it's done. Sure, they use flimsy excuses like "stuff was added so it's "new", but they're about as weak as they sound...

Listen to that logic for a second... just read that once again, keeping in mind what I've told you already.

The home console market does not target the hardcore PC gaming crowd. Not at all. If this were the case then obviously, Doom 3 would not say "exclusive for Xbox" on the case. The people this is done for are the main home console audience, and it's not about lying to them because it's on the PC--the PC is not even in the equation. It's about telling them that Doom 3 is not available for the PS2 and Gamecube. That's all they care about.

Quote:Advertising is the main way that you target your market (to tell them what your product is and who it's best for). Well, of course first comes game design (and some other factors), and tailoring your game for the audience you are intending it for, but that's just as sales-oriented as marketing is (that is, they do what they think will sell the most units / make the most money), so the difference isn't that large.

That is, you design the product with some market in mind, do your best to make sure that market will like it, and then advertise in a way to attract that market to buy your product...

Yes of course advertising is a part of the overall equation, but it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You are still confusing advertising with marketing in the sense that I am trying to explain to you.

Quote:Ah, I misinterpreted it a bit. But hardcore CONSOLE gamers make up a tiny fraction of the console market (number-of-people wise, money-wise it's more for both platforms), so that's not really saying anything... sure, there are pc gamers who don't play console games and console gamers who don't play pc games. But among the hardcore market, I'd think that most would play at least some games on PC. Perhaps they wouldn't buy lots of pc games, but something with mass popularity like Halo 1 (considering that it does have an additional feature in online play)? Much more likely (than some hardcore pc game).

Yes, the hardcore console gaming crowd is basically the same as the hardcore PC gaming crowd, and if everyone were like that there would be only one gaming market, because we are consumers of every gaming market. But that's not the case now is it? Most people choose one or the other.

That make sense?

Quote:You mean aim more for the older audience, like PSP is? Stuff like the DS dictionary, pda-like utilities, etc that they've got in Japan? Nintendo can try, but it's a console... the DS can't escape that fact. And as a console the vast majority of its market is squarely in the traditional handheld market -- though perhaps it is expanding it a bit, I wouldn't think it'd be very significantly.

Not really an older gaming crowd like the PSP, but an older crowd that doesn't play games.

We shall see if they become successful or not.

Quote:Oh, I see what you're trying to say, OB1. I quite well understand your point. As I said, though, I just don't think it tells the whole story.

I guess the question is if we're talking about us or in general. If we're talking about us (the people here), DJ's point is completely valid and correct. And I'd expect that that's who we'd be talking about... I mean, DJ has an X-Box and a PC. So how is it possibly wrong to say that it's wrong to say that an inferior version of a game is a selling point for a system? Your point is only correct in a sphere that is irrelevant to the people involved in the discussion.

This would be true if I was talking about whether or not DJ should buy an X-Box. But I wasn't. I was talking about the merits of the X-Box, and not just to a hardcore gamer.

Quote:Oh yeah, and really, as I said, there is only one market... it's just broken up into categories. But it's really all one thing, of course. Yes, most people won't buy a console for one game, but some will, and they'll be taking money away from the other systems that they own... is there any more direct way that systems compete? Not likely. Sure, PCs are much more expensive, and gaming pcs especially, and that's probably one of the biggest reasons that pc games sell worse. But many of the games are the same, and many of the gamers buying those games are the same... The console and PC markets have differences, but they are not completely seperate. As I've been saying, there's a lot of overlap. Yes, most people won't buy that X-Box just for Halo. Or that new graphics card for their PC just to get Halo and play it online (even if they already own the X-Box version). But the ones that do prove that there is overlap.

Of course they are a part of the same overall market. Groceries and cars are also a part of the same overall market, with overlapping there as well. Now PC games and console games are a lot closer together than groceries and trains are, but they are still separate and disctinct markets. You are thinking in very broad terms here.

Quote:Listen to that logic for a second... just read that once again, keeping in mind what I've told you already.

The home console market does not target the hardcore PC gaming crowd. Not at all. If this were the case then obviously, Doom 3 would not say "exclusive for Xbox" on the case. The people this is done for are the main home console audience, and it's not about lying to them because it's on the PC--the PC is not even in the equation. It's about telling them that Doom 3 is not available for the PS2 and Gamecube. That's all they care about.

I understand what you're saying... I just think you're wrong. :) Sure, for most of them PC is out of the question because Doom 3 requires a very nice PC. But still, it's not absurd... almost everyone has some kind of PC, after all. "Now available for X-Box", "only available on X-Box on consoles"... those are true. But "exclusive to X-Box"? No, not by any reasonable definition of the term. I just don't accept your hard seperation between PCs and consoles. I mean, there definitely is a line, but I just don't think it's as big as you seem to.

Quote:Yes of course advertising is a part of the overall equation, but it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You are still confusing advertising with marketing in the sense that I am trying to explain to you.

I haven't just talked about advertising... what do you think I'm missing?

Quote:Yes, the hardcore console gaming crowd is basically the same as the hardcore PC gaming crowd, and if everyone were like that there would be only one gaming market, because we are consumers of every gaming market. But that's not the case now is it? Most people choose one or the other.

That make sense?

I'd say that most people prioritize overall... not necessarially pc vs. console. Like me, who has pc and some consoles... sure, most hardcore console gamers would have nowhere near as many pc games as I do. But I'd expect most to have some... more than they would have for some consoles if they don't own them all (and I'd say it's more likely to have a pc and some consoles (with more games for the consoles) than all the consoles and no games for pc, since pretty much everyone needs a pc...)

That raises a good question, I think. Do more primarially PC gamers play (some) console games (percentage-wise), or do more console gamers play (some) pc games? I'd bet on the latter, really... a lot of pc gamers seem to really dislike pcs while it doesn't seem quite as strong (though it's definitely there!) the other way around. But maybe I'm wrong, I'm not sure.

Quote:Not really an older gaming crowd like the PSP, but an older crowd that doesn't play games.

We shall see if they become successful or not.

They've been saying that for a while now, but I don't see much results... maybe they do, who knows.

Quote:This would be true if I was talking about whether or not DJ should buy an X-Box. But I wasn't. I was talking about the merits of the X-Box, and not just to a hardcore gamer.

Even so, your reaction was not logical. I consider the PC just another system, like the consoles each are... one a bit more different from the others certainly, and with a slightly different market, but still another system. So saying that a game is better on that system, and not the other, makes sense to me... saying 'no that system doesn't count' is ridiculous. Even to a softcore gamer, the fact is, if it's best on PC it's best on PC! Sure, they probably don't have a good enough PC, but perhaps they do, and if they do then they should get it for PC... there isn't some magical dividing line between consoles and PCs.

Quote:Of course they are a part of the same overall market. Groceries and cars are also a part of the same overall market, with overlapping there as well. Now PC games and console games are a lot closer together than groceries and trains are, but they are still separate and disctinct markets. You are thinking in very broad terms here.

Yes, I am talking broadly. And you're thinking too narrowly. :)

Get an Xbox for Burnout 3. You won't be dissapointed.

It doesn't matter if they're in the same market or not. Most people only have so much money to spend on entertainment so when you think about it when I go to the movies or a bar and spend money that's money that could have been spent on videogames. Therefore movies and beer are competing with videogames for my dollars.

OB1 Wrote:I knew you'd say that, but it doesn't matter. Even if the GBA had come out in 1995 and Yoshi's Island had been ported over that very year, it would still have gotten that "only on GBA" sticker.

That sticker means jack shit and you should know that.

Quote:I understand what you're saying... I just think you're wrong. Sure, for most of them PC is out of the question because Doom 3 requires a very nice PC. But still, it's not absurd... almost everyone has some kind of PC, after all. "Now available for X-Box", "only available on X-Box on consoles"... those are true. But "exclusive to X-Box"? No, not by any reasonable definition of the term. I just don't accept your hard seperation between PCs and consoles. I mean, there definitely is a line, but I just don't think it's as big as you seem to.

That's because you're still confused about what I'm trying to explain to you.

The "exclusive on XBox" sticker is not for you and me. It's for the people who take up the largest percentage of the home console market, the casuals. Most of these casuals are not going to have a powerful enough gaming PC. They do not care that Doom 3 is available for the PC. What they need to know, what Microsft wants them to know, is that Doom 3 is not available for the PS2 and Gamecube, because those are the XBox's direct competion, not the PC. Without that sticker, they might wonder if they can get Doom 3 for the PS2 or GC, but with it they are certain that it can only be played on the XBox.

I don't know how much simpler I can explain this.

Quote:I haven't just talked about advertising... what do you think I'm missing?

You keep on bringing up advertising when I talk about markets.

Quote:I'd say that most people prioritize overall... not necessarially pc vs. console. Like me, who has pc and some consoles... sure, most hardcore console gamers would have nowhere near as many pc games as I do. But I'd expect most to have some... more than they would have for some consoles if they don't own them all (and I'd say it's more likely to have a pc and some consoles (with more games for the consoles) than all the consoles and no games for pc, since pretty much everyone needs a pc...)

That raises a good question, I think. Do more primarially PC gamers play (some) console games (percentage-wise), or do more console gamers play (some) pc games? I'd bet on the latter, really... a lot of pc gamers seem to really dislike pcs while it doesn't seem quite as strong (though it's definitely there!) the other way around. But maybe I'm wrong, I'm not sure.

"most people" do not have good gaming PCs. "most people" use their PCs for word and the internet. "most people" play games on home consoles, which is why console hardware and software sales are so much higher than PC ones.

Quote:They've been saying that for a while now, but I don't see much results... maybe they do, who knows.

Nintendogs might be a sign.

Quote:Even so, your reaction was not logical. I consider the PC just another system, like the consoles each are... one a bit more different from the others certainly, and with a slightly different market, but still another system. So saying that a game is better on that system, and not the other, makes sense to me... saying 'no that system doesn't count' is ridiculous. Even to a softcore gamer, the fact is, if it's best on PC it's best on PC! Sure, they probably don't have a good enough PC, but perhaps they do, and if they do then they should get it for PC... there isn't some magical dividing line between consoles and PCs.

You're right about one thing: the line is not magical. But there is a line, which is why there are separate markets.

Have you been listening to a single word I've said??

Quote:Yes, I am talking broadly. And you're thinking too narrowly.

You don't even know how to think narrowly in this topic. I'm thinking as broad as I need to.

But...the PC and console games ARE in the same market. It's called the videogame market. Just because you don't hold a controller with PC games (well, I suppose you could buy a gamepad) doesn't mean they're seperate. Sure, PC has lots of stuff not available on consoles, and vice-versa, but for many people, their main gaming system is their PC. For those who own a PC and a game console, that's two platforms capable of gaming, and each has titles competing for your money. That makes them in the same market Thus, I've always considered the PC to have be a factor in the market. The way I see it, you can go into a store with 50 or so dollars and pick up a copy of, say, Snake Eater and Half-Life 2. At that moment, you're holding two videogames, and you can only buy one. In this situation, you're forced to decide which game you want, the PC and Console games are competing for your money. That's all there is to it.

*sits down and calmly awaits OB1's undoubtedly incendiary reply*

*eats popcorn*

EdenMaster Wrote:But...the PC and console games ARE in the same market. It's called the videogame market. Just because you don't hold a controller with PC games (well, I suppose you could buy a gamepad) doesn't mean they're seperate. Sure, PC has lots of stuff not available on consoles, and vice-versa, but for many people, their main gaming system is their PC. For those who own a PC and a game console, that's two platforms capable of gaming, and each has titles competing for your money. That makes them in the same market Thus, I've always considered the PC to have be a factor in the market. The way I see it, you can go into a store with 50 or so dollars and pick up a copy of, say, Snake Eater and Half-Life 2. At that moment, you're holding two videogames, and you can only buy one. In this situation, you're forced to decide which game you want, the PC and Console games are competing for your money. That's all there is to it.

*sits down and calmly awaits OB1's undoubtedly incendiary reply*

Have you even been reading this entire discussion? I'd say that I've been very polite. And going by what you just wrote, I don't think you've been reading much of this debate at all (you don't understand what I mean by different markets at all). The responses to all of your points can be found in above replies. If you're still confused (after reading everything above), then let me know. But if you're simply trying to argue with me because it's fun to argue with OB1 and the truth be damned, go somewhere else. I'm only continuing with this because I *think* that ABF is slowly starting to understand my points.

OB1: I am a moron. Watch me spout forth nonsense for no real reason.

ABF: but...... it's nonsense....... you just said.......

Me: who gives a shit if PC isnt the same market, it's video games, and calling a title exclusive when it's available somewhere else is pure marketing bullshit. It's a different gaming platform, that by definition makes it a different market. ALL consoles are a different market respectfully, but they all co-exist in the video game market.

ABF: right.

DJ: Yeah, that's right. Hey, wait if OB1 knows it's nonsense, why does he keep on with it? Here's what happened. *content edited for time* See? OB1 is bursting to capacity with bull chips and yet he continues.... it's actually kind of amazing, like watching a worm fart.

Smoke: holy shit OB1's gone retard. Look, I even posted and showed him how retarded he is and he doesn't reply to it. Oh my god. I'm wasting my time.

Edenmaster: Hey I...... woah. Hey OB1, they're not different markets, they do compete with eachother on a regular basis. Why is this argument happening?

OB1: I am right and you are wrong. Observe: The video game market is broke down in to 12 thousand different types and PC isn't even one of them because PC's *content omitted because of lack there of* and also I made a dumb comment and i'm trying to work my out of it so I come out smelling like roses even though i've now totally lost the respect of everyone on the board, if I had any. Maybe, in order to get it back, i should start an argument on the correct pronounciantion of "Sega". Then, everyone will think I have a big brain.

Me: *eats popcorn*

Always the master debater, lazy.

There's nothing to debate! :D Unless you want to debate the absolute comedic genius of this thread. :D I mean seriously, I could post all the porn in the world, make weird/stupid jokes that no one gets and generally act like an ass for YEARS but I dont handle a candle to what you can do in ONE THREAD! I mean come on.

Ah yes, nothing to debate here. Another magnificent rebuttal. Just like how the triforce arcade hardware is totally different from the Gamecube hardware and how F-Zero AX totally features a completely different graphic and physics engine than GX. Lazy, if you actually knew what you were talking about once in a while I just might get offended by your attempted insults. ;)

Okay.

PCs and consoles are so in competition it's not funny. And just like there are consoles that compete, there are countless PC manufacturers competing. But don't fool yourself for a second by thinking they are seperate markets aloof of the other. If that were so, you wouldn't see consoles trying to go online, and you wouldn't see so many PC controllers that so closely look like console controllers to play games ported from those consoles. Now, obviously Everquest will never do as well on PS2 as it has on PC, and Silent Hill will never see the success on PC that it has on consoles, but that both markets are trying so hard to incorporate the best features of their competitors into their own products is all the proof one needs to smell the competition. They are both gaming platforms. Granted, they play in slightly different ways, but saying that they are totally seperate is like saying that VCRs don't compete with DVD players, or that television doesn't compete with radio for your attention and advertising dollars. Just because the competition isn't totally direct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you still think the world is flat, take a leap off the edge.

OB1, there are times to fight and times to admit that you're wrong. This is one of those where you admit you're wrong. Not on everything you're saying, mind -- most of that stuff about marketing is quite true. Just about your point that PCs and consoles are in different markets.

Quote:You keep on bringing up advertising when I talk about markets.

Advertising is probably the main way that you try to reach your market... but yes, as I said, other things come into it. I was thinking as a consumer, though, and to consumers the 'how was the game designed, what processes led to its creation, etc' part doesn't get thought about much. Playing the game and advertising does that. But yeah, those other factors probably are larger.

Quote:That's because you're still confused about what I'm trying to explain to you.

The "exclusive on XBox" sticker is not for you and me. It's for the people who take up the largest percentage of the home console market, the casuals. Most of these casuals are not going to have a powerful enough gaming PC. They do not care that Doom 3 is available for the PC. What they need to know, what Microsft wants them to know, is that Doom 3 is not available for the PS2 and Gamecube, because those are the XBox's direct competion, not the PC. Without that sticker, they might wonder if they can get Doom 3 for the PS2 or GC, but with it they are certain that it can only be played on the XBox.

I don't know how much simpler I can explain this.

You just rephrased what you've been saying for several posts. I already understand that that's what you're trying to say, and my rebuttal is still the same... (and the same as other people here are saying): that label is a stupid marketing ploy. It means nothing factually. It's sole purpose is to delude some casual gamers into buying the game, when they should be looking at the PC version box and seeing if their computer is good enough.

Quote:"most people" do not have good gaming PCs. "most people" use their PCs for word and the internet. "most people" play games on home consoles, which is why console hardware and software sales are so much higher than PC ones.

My computer is not a good gaming PC anymore. After all, it's 3 1/2 years old... you don't need a massively powerful computer to play pc games. You just need an adaquate one and you need to choose your titles wisely.

Quote:Nintendogs might be a sign.

Possibly, we'll see. It's certainly a game that appeals to the masses... like Animal Crossing. Nintendo is trying. But how many causals are actually buying these games?

Really, I think Nintendogs might do better than AC in that regard, because I think that handhelds are a more "casual" gaming platform than home consoles...

Quote:You're right about one thing: the line is not magical. But there is a line, which is why there are separate markets.

Have you been listening to a single word I've said??

Listening and agreeing are different. I listen, but I do not agree. :)

Quote:Ah yes, nothing to debate here. Another magnificent rebuttal. Just like how the triforce arcade hardware is totally different from the Gamecube hardware and how F-Zero AX totally features a completely different graphic and physics engine than GX. Lazy, if you actually knew what you were talking about once in a while I just might get offended by your attempted insults.

Saying "because you've said other thing X which I think is stupid so everything you say is stupid" is a really bad debating tactic. That said, I don't know about the particulars of F-Zero AX.

Quote:PCs and consoles are so in competition it's not funny. And just like there are consoles that compete, there are countless PC manufacturers competing. But don't fool yourself for a second by thinking they are seperate markets aloof of the other. If that were so, you wouldn't see consoles trying to go online, and you wouldn't see so many PC controllers that so closely look like console controllers to play games ported from those consoles. Now, obviously Everquest will never do as well on PS2 as it has on PC, and Silent Hill will never see the success on PC that it has on consoles, but that both markets are trying so hard to incorporate the best features of their competitors into their own products is all the proof one needs to smell the competition. They are both gaming platforms. Granted, they play in slightly different ways, but saying that they are totally seperate is like saying that VCRs don't compete with DVD players, or that television doesn't compete with radio for your attention and advertising dollars. Just because the competition isn't totally direct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quite definitely. Now, there's definitely a sizable market on the PC that doesn't buy console games, and wants PC-style games and not console ports, but there's lots of overlap, so saying that they are completely seperate is silly. Just say that they have their differences, more so than any two normal home consoles, but are all essentially similar gaming platforms. That's true enough.

Oh man oh man oh man! This is the best part!

*gets a box of Snocaps and Goobers*

A Black Falcon Wrote:OB1, there are times to fight and times to admit that you're wrong. This is one of those where you admit you're wrong.

That's not going to happen.

Oh, I know. But I had to say it...

But really, this argument isn't as bad as usual... not as much yelling and stuff. :)

Ryan Wrote:Okay.

PCs and consoles are so in competition it's not funny. And just like there are consoles that compete, there are countless PC manufacturers competing. But don't fool yourself for a second by thinking they are seperate markets aloof of the other. If that were so, you wouldn't see consoles trying to go online, and you wouldn't see so many PC controllers that so closely look like console controllers to play games ported from those consoles. Now, obviously Everquest will never do as well on PS2 as it has on PC, and Silent Hill will never see the success on PC that it has on consoles, but that both markets are trying so hard to incorporate the best features of their competitors into their own products is all the proof one needs to smell the competition. They are both gaming platforms. Granted, they play in slightly different ways, but saying that they are totally seperate is like saying that VCRs don't compete with DVD players, or that television doesn't compete with radio for your attention and advertising dollars. Just because the competition isn't totally direct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you still think the world is flat, take a leap off the edge.

Ryan, just like the rest of these confused members here, you are not able to think in anything but very broad terms.

EVERY non-essential product made in this world to sell to consumers is vying for your (the consumer's) attention. So in that broad sense, books are competing with movies, video games are competing with flowers, and bikes are competing with radios. But believe it or not, there are distinctions in the marketplace. Now I know, all of your vast knowledge on this subject which consists of five minutes worth of *somewhat* concentrated thought tells you differently, but I assure you that if you take even just one marketing and business class or seminar you will find out the same thing. Call it stupid if you wish (I won't disagree), but that is how the market works. There are very broad markets, and there are sub markets. Nintendo makes products for a few distinct sub markets, and there is enough distinction between them that they have them separated, like like Sony has all of their billion sub markets separated as well. This is not rocket science, people. I can't believe how difficult this is for some of you to understand this.

Quote:OB1, there are times to fight and times to admit that you're wrong. This is one of those where you admit you're wrong. Not on everything you're saying, mind -- most of that stuff about marketing is quite true. Just about your point that PCs and consoles are in different markets.

Ok let's think about this for a moment.

Who here has a pretty good amount of knowledge of business and marketing? Answer: me.

Who here has family members who make their living having to know about this stuff? Answer: me

Who here knows absolutely nothing about this subject and refuses to listen to a more knowledgeable person's explanation for the sole reason that there's nothing you hate more than to admit that he's right? Answer: the whole lot of you

I am not making this stuff up. I have tried to explain the reasoning behind the "exclusive for..." stickers that you see on Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony games, but every single one of you are so dead-set on believing that the answer is simply "because teh compenees are SSTupud!!!!11111" that you refuse to listen to anything that I have to say. Think about this for a moment, without saying "Grrr, I can't let that OB1 be right!" and you just might finally get it.

As dumb as you may think Nintendo, MS, and Sony are, they don't do everything out of ignorance. They know a thing or two more than a bunch of internet message board geeks. I am not saying that they're perfect, just that there is reasoning behind a lot of the things that they do. Disagree with it as much as you want, but this immaturity has to stop.

Quote:Advertising is probably the main way that you try to reach your market... but yes, as I said, other things come into it. I was thinking as a consumer, though, and to consumers the 'how was the game designed, what processes led to its creation, etc' part doesn't get thought about much. Playing the game and advertising does that. But yeah, those other factors probably are larger.

Now you are talking about game design. You're getting off track again. On top of another off-track comment.

Quote:You just rephrased what you've been saying for several posts. I already understand that that's what you're trying to say, and my rebuttal is still the same... (and the same as other people here are saying): that label is a stupid marketing ploy. It means nothing factually. It's sole purpose is to delude some casual gamers into buying the game, when they should be looking at the PC version box and seeing if their computer is good enough.

I'm repeating this because you still don't understand it.

I have a news flash for you guys: you are not the common gamer. Yes, that's right. You are the hardcore, and the hardcore means very little anymore. It's sad, but true. The market is not decided by you because you are a minority. The market is decided by the majority, which are the casuals. Market research has told Microsoft that most of their X-Box gamers do not play modern PC games, if any at all. This is why they don't need to make a sticker for Doom 3 that read "Exclusive on X-Box... and PC!", because their target audience doesn't care if it's on the PC or not.

If the marketplace was controlled by the hardcore gamer, guess what would happen? Gaming advertisements would be gone for good (I know, a tragedy). Seriously, when's the last time you ever cared about a game ad? You know what you're going to get months before a game comes out. You count on impressions and reviews (from pros or your friends) to decide on what games to buy. The ads mean nothing to you.

The same exact thing goes for all of those "exclusive for" stickers that you babies whine about so much. They're not for you! They're for the stereotypical college kid who buys Halo because he heard that it's "like the most bitchin' thing ever"!

The point of the "exclusive for" sticker to to educate the masses, for each sub market. Microsoft's data tells them that most of their XBox users do not play modern games on their PC, so they want them to know that they cannot get Doom 3 for the PS2 or Gamecube. The exclusive sticker, everything... is not for US. It is for THEM.

Quote:My computer is not a good gaming PC anymore. After all, it's 3 1/2 years old... you don't need a massively powerful computer to play pc games. You just need an adaquate one and you need to choose your titles wisely.

My point is that most people don't play games other than the likes of solitare and minesweeper on their PC.

Quote:Possibly, we'll see. It's certainly a game that appeals to the masses... like Animal Crossing. Nintendo is trying. But how many causals are actually buying these games?

Really, I think Nintendogs might do better than AC in that regard, because I think that handhelds are a more "casual" gaming platform than home consoles...

We'll see with The Revolution... they want to reach out to an entirely different audience with that, as well. While still catering to their devoted Nintendo fans, of course.

Quote:Listening and agreeing are different. I listen, but I do not agree.

This isn't an opinion. It's a fact. Markets are separated, and more narrowly than you think.

Seriously, what research have you done on this topic? None at all, right? Of course not. I don't know why you insist that you know more about this than I do.

Quote:Saying "because you've said other thing X which I think is stupid so everything you say is stupid" is a really bad debating tactic. That said, I don't know about the particulars of F-Zero AX.

Again, you fail to understand what I wrote.

Lazy's entire rebuttal was "OMG you're teh dumb", and said that "there's nothing to debate here". Yet he never responded to the whole F-Zero thing.

Quote:Quite definitely. Now, there's definitely a sizable market on the PC that doesn't buy console games, and wants PC-style games and not console ports, but there's lots of overlap, so saying that they are completely seperate is silly. Just say that they have their differences, more so than any two normal home consoles, but are all essentially similar gaming platforms. That's true enough.

Nothing is "completely separate". Flowers and bikes are not "completely separate". But they are separate enough to make companies use different marketing strategies for each sub market. This is what you cannot understand.

Quote:That's not going to happen.

Right, because the effective rebuttal here from all of you which is "you are so not right!" is just so convincing.

I have knowledge about this subject. To suggest that I'm wrong when you don't even understand what this entire debate is about only shows that you are a troll.




This is what this debate has come down to:


I have explained, in detail, why companies like Microsoft and Nintendo put "exclusive for" stickers on their game packages. I have explained how the markets are separate, with separate enough main audiences, to cater to each one differently. I have explained how the markets work by explaining how companies target different audiences for different products and how they know which audience is which, and why their advertising targets each specific audience.

Your responses have been, so far:

"you are dumb"

"that's not true, but I will not explain why that's not true"

"that's not true, and I will explain why that is not true by explaining something totally different that has very little to do with your point"

"OMG you can't admit that you're wrong, even though I am just a troll who knows nothing about this topic"

"OMG game companies are dumb and I can't believe you listen to advertisements"



If none of you are willing to continue with this in a mature, intelligent manner, I will quit and leave you to wallow in your ignorance. I am trying to explain something very boring and tedious to all of you, something that you have none or very little knowledge about and refuse to listen to because, God forbid, OB1 might be right, and we can't have that. Because, of course, he never admits that he is wrong (even though he has)... forget the fact that we're huge hypocrites who can't admit when we are wrong, but that doesn't matter because we can't let him be right! Who cares if he knows more about this subject than us and is trying to give us a business and marketing lesson? I'll just cover my ears, close my eyes, and continue to troll and "debate" this in the only way I know how: by responding to one thing with something almost completely unrelated!

Quote:As dumb as you may think Nintendo, MS, and Sony are, they don't do everything out of ignorance. They know a thing or two more than a bunch of internet message board geeks. I am not saying that they're perfect, just that there is reasoning behind a lot of the things that they do. Disagree with it as much as you want, but this immaturity has to stop.

Oh, certainly. They're relying on human stupidity, which is a very strong force, so of course it's going to work... that doesn't make it any less stupid, but I'm sure that a lot of the time it works.

Quote:EVERY non-essential product made in this world to sell to consumers is vying for your (the consumer's) attention. So in that broad sense, books are competing with movies, video games are competing with flowers, and bikes are competing with radios. But believe it or not, there are distinctions in the marketplace. Now I know, all of your vast knowledge on this subject which consists of five minutes worth of *somewhat* concentrated thought tells you differently, but I assure you that if you take even just one marketing and business class or seminar you will find out the same thing. Call it stupid if you wish (I won't disagree), but that is how the market works. There are very broad markets, and there are sub markets. Nintendo makes products for a few distinct sub markets, and there is enough distinction between them that they have them separated, like like Sony has all of their billion sub markets separated as well. This is not rocket science, people. I can't believe how difficult this is for some of you to understand this.

Why can't you accept that it's possible for people to understand what you're saying without completely agreeing with every word of your conclusions as well?

Quote:My point is that most people don't play games other than the likes of solitare and minesweeper on their PC.

Games like Myst and The Sims have huge non-gamer popularity. So do many other sim-style games -- look at how often things like Zoo Tycoon are on the top 10 selling PC games lists! It's not hardcore gamers buying those titles...

Quote:We'll see with The Revolution... they want to reach out to an entirely different audience with that, as well. While still catering to their devoted Nintendo fans, of course.

I very much doubt that they'll change their current approach much...

Quote:This isn't an opinion. It's a fact. Markets are separated, and more narrowly than you think.

Seriously, what research have you done on this topic? None at all, right? Of course not. I don't know why you insist that you know more about this than I do.

Then why is there so much overlap between PC games and gamers and console games and gamers that virtually everybody can seee it?

Yeah, because the line is nowhere near as sharp as you make it out to be.

Quote:Nothing is "completely separate". Flowers and bikes are not "completely separate". But they are separate enough to make companies use different marketing strategies for each sub market. This is what you cannot understand.

You continue to confuse understanding with opinion. Well, mostly... I do think that for the most part companies don't take very different approaches to PC and console game marketing. Of course, there are differences. I expect that you're mostly talking about your own experiences of PC gamers not liking console-style platformers, not having gamepads, etc, etc... and that's true to a good extent, and there are some differences in the markets, but there is indisputably a lot of overlap.

After all, numerous console games get ported to PC. They obviously sell, because console games keep getting ported to PC. If the markets really had no connection, they wouldn't port them or if they did no one would buy... but they do, because while PC gamers have some different tastes from console gamers, at heart they're all gamers so they like the same things in general.

Anyway... on the 'facts of how things are done' side, we agree more than you'd like to admit (since you wouldn't be able to call me stupid quite as many times, something that you obviously love to do)... anyway, this is about pc-versus-console, and I'll talk more about that later.

Quote:If the marketplace was controlled by the hardcore gamer, guess what would happen? Gaming advertisements would be gone for good (I know, a tragedy). Seriously, when's the last time you ever cared about a game ad? You know what you're going to get months before a game comes out. You count on impressions and reviews (from pros or your friends) to decide on what games to buy. The ads mean nothing to you.

Of course you have to advertise if you want to sell your games... not everyone is a hardcore gamer, unfortunately, and you won't get enough sales by just targetting them if you're trying to be a very successful company. Targetting just a small market only works for very small, targetted groups like Matrix Games (who make PC wargames and sell most of their games online only)...

Quote:The same exact thing goes for all of those "exclusive for" stickers that you babies whine about so much. They're not for you! They're for the stereotypical college kid who buys Halo because he heard that it's "like the most bitchin' thing ever"!

The point of the "exclusive for" sticker to to educate the masses, for each sub market. Microsoft's data tells them that most of their XBox users do not play modern games on their PC, so they want them to know that they cannot get Doom 3 for the PS2 or Gamecube. The exclusive sticker, everything... is not for US. It is for THEM.

Correct... except for where you say that the stickers are there to educate the masses. They're not. They're there to increase sales by convincing people that this title cannot be gotten anywhere else, even if it really can (as often is true).

Quote:I'm repeating this because you still don't understand it.

I have a news flash for you guys: you are not the common gamer. Yes, that's right. You are the hardcore, and the hardcore means very little anymore. It's sad, but true. The market is not decided by you because you are a minority. The market is decided by the majority, which are the casuals. Market research has told Microsoft that most of their X-Box gamers do not play modern PC games, if any at all. This is why they don't need to make a sticker for Doom 3 that read "Exclusive on X-Box... and PC!", because their target audience doesn't care if it's on the PC or not.

The target market might well care, but MS is funding those ads so they don't want any mention of the PC made. MS cares a lot more about X-Box game sales than they do PC games (for evidence of THAT, just look at MechWarrior -- since MS bought the franchise, we've seen no PC MechWarrior games in like five years... but two on consoles.)

Quote:If none of you are willing to continue with this in a mature, intelligent manner, I will quit and leave you to wallow in your ignorance. I am trying to explain something very boring and tedious to all of you, something that you have none or very little knowledge about and refuse to listen to because, God forbid, OB1 might be right, and we can't have that. Because, of course, he never admits that he is wrong (even though he has)... forget the fact that we're huge hypocrites who can't admit when we are wrong, but that doesn't matter because we can't let him be right! Who cares if he knows more about this subject than us and is trying to give us a business and marketing lesson? I'll just cover my ears, close my eyes, and continue to troll and "debate" this in the only way I know how: by responding to one thing with something almost completely unrelated!

I know plenty, as I've shown over and over. You just won't recognize it... like in this thread. On some of these issues we actually are pretty close to agreeing, but you don't seem to notice that... you'd rather rant at my stupidity.

Really, what I'm disagreeing about is how different the PC and console markets are. You think they are more different than I do. You can cite evidence for your side (or so you say, you don't show much of it other than "I am far smarter than you and know far more than you about marketing" -- okay, so how does this apply to the PC-versus-console situation? You've talked about various things that somewhat relate to the key question, but have you directly addressed this, the main question at hand?), I can cite evidence for mine...

OB1 Wrote:Ryan, just like the rest of these confused members here, you are not able to think in anything but very broad terms.

EVERY non-essential product made in this world to sell to consumers is vying for your (the consumer's) attention. So in that broad sense, books are competing with movies, video games are competing with flowers, and bikes are competing with radios. But believe it or not, there are distinctions in the marketplace. Now I know, all of your vast knowledge on this subject which consists of five minutes worth of *somewhat* concentrated thought tells you differently, but I assure you that if you take even just one marketing and business class or seminar you will find out the same thing. Call it stupid if you wish (I won't disagree), but that is how the market works. There are very broad markets, and there are sub markets. Nintendo makes products for a few distinct sub markets, and there is enough distinction between them that they have them separated, like like Sony has all of their billion sub markets separated as well. This is not rocket science, people. I can't believe how difficult this is for some of you to understand this.

Gee, I guess all those years working in retail and actually selling this shit didn't teach me a thing about marketing. Imagine that.

Now, I'll admit that there are sub-markets, but that's not the point. The broad point is the IMPORTANT point. These subgroups merely exist so that the corporate entity on the whole can get a leg-up on their competitors. That's why I don't buy the bullshit Nintendo spews about creating their own market niche and not competing with Sony and MS. They are quite in competition. They have to do it in unorthodox ways because the avenue of gaming consoles is one Nintendo will never control again. Now, Nintendo's subsystems work well enough that the company turns a profit and their supposed lack of competitive fire is accepted at face value, but don't you think for a minute that Nintendo wouldn't go guns forward if they had a legitimate opportunity to unseat Sony from their perch, even if it seems like they really don't care anymore... I think that's more a result of a sense of futility than anything. The point is, you're making these sub-divisions of the process out to be the most important, but it's only one piece of the puzzle. Take football for an analogy. One team gains more yardage, more first downs and causes more turnovers than their opponent. This opponent scores more points than the first. Which one wins the game? The object is not simply to find a niche and control it, but to use these niches to boost the company as a whole. That's why the broad viewpoint is quite important here. It's why Nintendo controls so many niches and yet is in last place in the console race.

Quote:Ok let's think about this for a moment.

Who here has a pretty good amount of knowledge of business and marketing? Answer: me.

Who here has family members who make their living having to know about this stuff? Answer: me

Who here knows absolutely nothing about this subject and refuses to listen to a more knowledgeable person's explanation for the sole reason that there's nothing you hate more than to admit that he's right? Answer: the whole lot of you

Oh, give me a break, professor. Just because you took a class or two doesn't make you the eminent authority on anything. Much of marketing and its workings is based on common sense. I'm quite sure that you've taken more English and Writing courses than I have, and I'm also quite sure I am a better writer than you are, despite not taking any such classes in high school. All I have to do is remember that you consider Emperor Palpatine a well-written, deep character and I don't doubt for a minute that I can do better, and have done better, without even thinking.

Sometimes you really just need to swallow your pride, taste defeat, and brush your teeth. You often end up in arguments where it's you against the world, and the frequency of them suggests that you may not be the know-it-all you think you are.

OB1, "psychic networks" and "wholistic healers" have managed to sucker the money out of people using nothing but terrible logic and outright falsities. They know how to get people to pay for their stuff, yes, but absolutely none of what they do can be considered logical, much less moral. Just because they can TRICK people doesn't mean they are going about it logically. And yes, I'm aware your argument is really about what sorts of people will buy different things, not really about the advertising itself, but that's the thing. It's not just EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE that considers PC games in the same market as the rest of games, it's a LOT of people. As you said, the majority determines the market. If the majority of people who play games, casual gamers, consider PC games and console games the same market, then I guess it's so.

But wait, maybe you mean it's not that they THINK it, but that they ACT on it by actually buying the products. I can see that, but they don't have to actually BUY every single system to prove the point. They just have to get to a point where they must make a choice, either console system or PC. By your standards, the Gamecube is a seperate market from the PS2. It's not AS seperated as the PC is from consoles in general, but it's as meaningless a seperation as that.

Quote:Oh, certainly. They're relying on human stupidity, which is a very strong force, so of course it's going to work... that doesn't make it any less stupid, but I'm sure that a lot of the time it works.

Eh, you're thinking about advertising again. People aren't dumb if they don't spend all of their time thinking about videogames.

Quote:Why can't you accept that it's possible for people to understand what you're saying without completely agreeing with every word of your conclusions as well?

If any of you showed that you actually do understand what I'm saying (which isn't my opinion, it's facts about marketing and business), then I wouldn't care. But the responses I've been getting so far show that no one has yet to fully understand what I'm saying. I thought that you did for a little while there, but then you reverted back to your usual ABFisms.

Quote:Games like Myst and The Sims have huge non-gamer popularity. So do many other sim-style games -- look at how often things like Zoo Tycoon are on the top 10 selling PC games lists! It's not hardcore gamers buying those titles...

Yes, The Sims and games like that are definitely being bought by people other than the hardcore gaming crowd. And I can see how this would make you think that this proves your "point", because I do admit that this is confusing, but think about the facts here for a minute instead of your never-ending desire to try and prove me wrong, and I think you'll see that this fits perfectly with the model that I've explained. I was going to mention games like The Sims before, but decided to wait until someone brought it up because things were already confusing enough as it is. So allow me to explain.


There are basically four types of gamers that publishers try to target (right now):

Hardcore PC gamers

Casual PC gamers

Hardcore console gamers

Casual console gamers



The hardcore PC gamer is the main target of PC game publishers, all except for a few companies like EA. This is why there are usually much better games on PC top ten lists than console ones. Even smaller games do well on the PC, by PC standards. However, there are also a few types of games (or rather, franchises) that sell well pretty much entirely because of casual PC gamers. The Sims and Zoo Tycoon are some such games. They don't require great PCs and attract a different type of casual gamer, the type who wouldn't normally play games, and certainly wouldn't play something like Halo. There is of course a bit of cross-contamination between the two main audiences, but they are separate enough for the publishers and so they act accordingly.

The situation is similar with consoles, except with consoles the casuals are a far greater majority then either type is on the PC. This is why the console market is thriving so much, because there are far, far more casual gamers out there than hardcore ones. And of course, there is cross-contamination between all four types of gamers, but they are separate enough for publishers, as I said.

Quote:I very much doubt that they'll change their current approach much...

What do you mean?

Quote:Then why is there so much overlap between PC games and gamers and console games and gamers that virtually everybody can seee it?

Yeah, because the line is nowhere near as sharp as you make it out to be.

The overlapping is only between hardcore gamers. And hardcore gamers make up a small percentage of the marketplace.

Quote:You continue to confuse understanding with opinion. Well, mostly... I do think that for the most part companies don't take very different approaches to PC and console game marketing. Of course, there are differences. I expect that you're mostly talking about your own experiences of PC gamers not liking console-style platformers, not having gamepads, etc, etc... and that's true to a good extent, and there are some differences in the markets, but there is indisputably a lot of overlap.

After all, numerous console games get ported to PC. They obviously sell, because console games keep getting ported to PC. If the markets really had no connection, they wouldn't port them or if they did no one would buy... but they do, because while PC gamers have some different tastes from console gamers, at heart they're all gamers so they like the same things in general.

Anyway... on the 'facts of how things are done' side, we agree more than you'd like to admit (since you wouldn't be able to call me stupid quite as many times, something that you obviously love to do)... anyway, this is about pc-versus-console, and I'll talk more about that later.

No, this is not about "pc vs consoles", but now I understand why you refuse to budge even a tiny bit here. I'm talking about markets and business, not whether or not consoles are better than PCs, or vice versa!

And I'm not talking about tastes, not directly! I'm talking about how the market is divided up, who buys what and how publishers target different people, how they separate things and how they go about marketing from there. This is not about my opinion! My opinion has nothing to do with this! Perhaps this is why you're so eager to prove me wrong, because you feel the need to disprove my opinions all of the time. I have been talking strictly business this entire time. I am trying to explain to you how the marketing and business side works, and you are confusing this with all sorts of other seemingly related topics like which platforms are better, why bother paying attention to ads, and etc. I've had to study this very tedious subject for a pretty long time, and I do know what I am talking about here. I am trying to talk to you on a formal business level but you keep on trying to drag me down into an immature PC vs. console war. This is not your typical internet message board debate. This shouldn't even be a debate at all. I am providing you with information and facts, the kind of which you would learn for yourself from years of boring business and marketing classes.

Quote:Of course you have to advertise if you want to sell your games... not everyone is a hardcore gamer, unfortunately, and you won't get enough sales by just targetting them if you're trying to be a very successful company. Targetting just a small market only works for very small, targetted groups like Matrix Games (who make PC wargames and sell most of their games online only)...

Yes, this is one of my points... don't isolate this, think about this along with everything else that I have said.

Quote:The target market might well care, but MS is funding those ads so they don't want any mention of the PC made. MS cares a lot more about X-Box game sales than they do PC games (for evidence of THAT, just look at MechWarrior -- since MS bought the franchise, we've seen no PC MechWarrior games in like five years... but two on consoles.)

Quote:Correct... except for where you say that the stickers are there to educate the masses. They're not. They're there to increase sales by convincing people that this title cannot be gotten anywhere else, even if it really can (as often is true).

If you ignore the facts then I can understand why you'd see it that way.

If you're selling peach baskets in some town in Colorado that's not available in other stores in that town, you're going to advertise that fact. Yes, you can also buy peach baskets in California, but the audience this peach basket seller is trying to target doesn't care if they can buy peach baskets in California, because they don't want to go to California. They just want to get their peach baskets in town, they just want to know if they can get peach baskets from other stores in town.

Basically: the people who Microsoft made the stickers for are more than likely not going to care if Doom 3 is available on the PC, because they don't want it for the PC nor do they have a powerful enough PC to play it. They play their games on their consoles, and they want to know if they can get it for the other systems or not. So Microsoft really isn't misleading these people because they're not advertising the fact that it's also on the PC (not only because it would make for a bigger sticker, haha). They're just telling them what they want to know.

Quote:I know plenty, as I've shown over and over. You just won't recognize it... like in this thread. On some of these issues we actually are pretty close to agreeing, but you don't seem to notice that... you'd rather rant at my stupidity.

Really, what I'm disagreeing about is how different the PC and console markets are. You think they are more different than I do. You can cite evidence for your side (or so you say, you don't show much of it other than "I am far smarter than you and know far more than you about marketing" -- okay, so how does this apply to the PC-versus-console situation? You've talked about various things that somewhat relate to the key question, but have you directly addressed this, the main question at hand?), I can cite evidence for mine...

The evidence is found in sales data from PC and console hardware and software, but it is meaningless to you unless you have the knowledge to make sense out of it. For this topic, that is marketing and business knowledge, which you do not have. There's nothing wrong with that, it's a very boring topic. I'm just saying.

I wish you knew more about this but you really don't. You don't want to listen to my main points.

Ryan Wrote:Gee, I guess all those years working in retail and actually selling this shit didn't teach me a thing about marketing. Imagine that.

Now, I'll admit that there are sub-markets, but that's not the point. The broad point is the IMPORTANT point. These subgroups merely exist so that the corporate entity on the whole can get a leg-up on their competitors. That's why I don't buy the bullshit Nintendo spews about creating their own market niche and not competing with Sony and MS. They are quite in competition. They have to do it in unorthodox ways because the avenue of gaming consoles is one Nintendo will never control again. Now, Nintendo's subsystems work well enough that the company turns a profit and their supposed lack of competitive fire is accepted at face value, but don't you think for a minute that Nintendo wouldn't go guns forward if they had a legitimate opportunity to unseat Sony from their perch, even if it seems like they really don't care anymore... I think that's more a result of a sense of futility than anything. The point is, you're making these sub-divisions of the process out to be the most important, but it's only one piece of the puzzle. Take football for an analogy. One team gains more yardage, more first downs and causes more turnovers than their opponent. This opponent scores more points than the first. Which one wins the game? The object is not simply to find a niche and control it, but to use these niches to boost the company as a whole. That's why the broad viewpoint is quite important here. It's why Nintendo controls so many niches and yet is in last place in the console race.

What you're saying is correct, but that's not what I have been talking about this entire time. If you've just skimmed through the post and read DJ's and ABF's responses then I can see why you'd think that this is what I'm talking about, but your points are completely irrelevant to my entire argument.

Ryan Wrote:Oh, give me a break, professor. Just because you took a class or two doesn't make you the eminent authority on anything. Much of marketing and its workings is based on common sense. I'm quite sure that you've taken more English and Writing courses than I have, and I'm also quite sure I am a better writer than you are, despite not taking any such classes in high school. All I have to do is remember that you consider Emperor Palpatine a well-written, deep character and I don't doubt for a minute that I can do better, and have done better, without even thinking.

Sometimes you really just need to swallow your pride, taste defeat, and brush your teeth. You often end up in arguments where it's you against the world, and the frequency of them suggests that you may not be the know-it-all you think you are.

I have more knowledge about marketing and business than anyone here seems to have, and yes believe it or not school can be educational, even if something is largely about common sense. But in this case, what I have been trying to explain, is purely technical and irrelevant to my opinions on marketing, and the technical matter is very much dependent upon how much you have learned in this subject.

And for the record, I've only taken one creative writing class before. But that does not make you the authority on good writing. Being able to write and being a good judge of writing are not the same thing. Spielberg's opinions on movies are not authoritative, for example. His opinion certainly commands some respect, but then again you're not exactly a famous writer. ;)

DJ Wrote:OB1, "psychic networks" and "wholistic healers" have managed to sucker the money out of people using nothing but terrible logic and outright falsities. They know how to get people to pay for their stuff, yes, but absolutely none of what they do can be considered logical, much less moral. Just because they can TRICK people doesn't mean they are going about it logically. And yes, I'm aware your argument is really about what sorts of people will buy different things, not really about the advertising itself, but that's the thing. It's not just EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE that considers PC games in the same market as the rest of games, it's a LOT of people. As you said, the majority determines the market. If the majority of people who play games, casual gamers, consider PC games and console games the same market, then I guess it's so.

But wait, maybe you mean it's not that they THINK it, but that they ACT on it by actually buying the products. I can see that, but they don't have to actually BUY every single system to prove the point. They just have to get to a point where they must make a choice, either console system or PC. By your standards, the Gamecube is a seperate market from the PS2. It's not AS seperated as the PC is from consoles in general, but it's as meaningless a seperation as that.

DJ, just because a lot of ignorant people believe one thing doesn't make it true.

And thanks again for showing that you've completely missed the point.

No, it doesn't, UNLESS it's something like what is the value of a dollar. THAT IS dependant on popular consensus. Or, for example, what the definition of a word is. Again, language is entirely dependant on majority rule within a culture. I do believe where markets begin and end are also dependant on that, public consensus, as expressed by what they buy. And again, by your OWN logic I could easily argue that the PS2 and the Gamecube are seperate markets, just a lot closer than PC to consoles in general.

And if I keep missing your point, maybe you should explain it, one more time, just for the heck of it?

I've already explained my point dozens of times already, so all you need to do is look up and read my posts.


But you did get one thing right, that the public determines what the market is. No matter how much the publishers try to target a certain audience, if the public does not respond accordingly then they "lost". This is often the case with Nintendo.

However, what you got wrong is who actually buys what and how many of them buy it. I'm sure that your close friends provide all of the data that you need though, right? ...


...

When I saw the preview for this over at aintitcool news, I had no idea it would be this good. The death scene is supposed to be 'oscar material' or so I read. And so far I tend to agree. Look at the rage in OB1's posts as he tries to prove a nonexistent point while about a dozen people or so laugh at him. Yet he continues! The special effects are so so, but who cares, it's the story that counts.

*drinks soda from a 3 foot tall 'small' container*

When have you ever seen a Dell commercial saying that their computer are better than the Xbox/PS2/GC? I rest my case.

Quote:When I saw the preview for this over at aintitcool news, I had no idea it would be this good. The death scene is supposed to be 'oscar material' or so I read. And so far I tend to agree. Look at the rage in OB1's posts as he tries to prove a nonexistent point while about a dozen people or so laugh at him. Yet he continues! The special effects are so so, but who cares, it's the story that counts.

*drinks soda from a 3 foot tall 'small' container*

Yes, much rage has gone on in my posts.

Nice try though, troll.

Interactive movie!

Spandex Space Smarties!

Alright, it's obvious that most people here simply want to troll (because they lost previous arguments with me, or quit because there was no substance to their points... *cough*LAZYFATBUMFZERO*cough*).

So ABF, or anyone else that wants to continue discussing this in a serious, mature manner, email me at prancetron2000@yahoo.com

I will not continue posting in this thread. Let me know when some of you grow up, mmkay?

In the computer market you have a standardized platform [with Windows, for the most part] while in the home console market you have competing platforms with their own set of exclusive [and some stadardized] titles.

So with in the videogame market the competition is mainly between consoles, deciding on which set of titles each person like the most. While in the computer market the competition comes down to the games because the list of chioces is basically the entire market of computer games, there may be a few that are Mac or Linux only but it's not big enough to really make a difference I think.

Nintendo's exclusives are directly competiting with Sony's and MS's, because that's where the main choice is made, which set is more desirable. The multiplatform games find themselves in a bit of a doldrums when this choice is made, unless there is enough deviation to make a difference. Once the choice is made between the set of exclusive titles, then the market comes down to a competition between the set of exclusives that was chosen and the multiplatform games that are found in that market.

MS put the "exclusive" sticker on Doom3 because they are directly competing with the set of exclusives on the GC and the PS2. They want to differentiate their set of exclusives from the set of exclusive on the GC and PS2 and make it look better when directly compared.