14th February 2003, 1:21 PM
I have the opinion of Laser Link, in that when you're comparing games between consoles, you can't make sliding scales. One sold better than the other. End of comment. The sliding scales are only valuable when you want to find out "Why?"
On a related note, I hate the statistic used to represent "user base." The number used is the number of consoles sold, but we should remember that there is a scale of involvement in the console for each user. At the ends of this scale, there is the completely active user and the innactive user. The innactive user does not buy games for the system anymore. The completely active user buys more than 20 games per year for the console. Thus, while the "user base" of N64 was higher when Conker was released as compared to, say, Ocarina of Time, I think everyone can agree that software sales were harder to come by in early 2002. Thus, I dislike the whole, "Well, the "user base" is larger, so it should have sold more" argument.
On a related note, I hate the statistic used to represent "user base." The number used is the number of consoles sold, but we should remember that there is a scale of involvement in the console for each user. At the ends of this scale, there is the completely active user and the innactive user. The innactive user does not buy games for the system anymore. The completely active user buys more than 20 games per year for the console. Thus, while the "user base" of N64 was higher when Conker was released as compared to, say, Ocarina of Time, I think everyone can agree that software sales were harder to come by in early 2002. Thus, I dislike the whole, "Well, the "user base" is larger, so it should have sold more" argument.