|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 26, 2018 1:43:44 GMT
The table at the bottom is your clue: 1982 42 Billion (adjusted for inflation) 2017 116 Billion NES is not even in the top 5 consoles. www.tekrevue.com/compared-the-best-selling-video-game-consoles-of-all-time/the reason they brought out the NES classic was so that people of my generation would be able to have a nostalgia kick. Precisely because video games do so well and now more than anticipated in the older demographics (as my generation grows up) they knew they would have a seller on their hands. They are trying to capture the market they once had, but to supplement the much larger profits they are already making on consoles. Tell me do you read anything prior to making these wild claims? I found data showing that the price of the individual new consoles was higher, but not that sales were higher. That means they could well have a few elite customers willing to pay more for the new consoles, but not enough customers to bring revenues to former heights. All of which I could have guessed. I did not find 42 vs. 116 billion even using "find" feature of browser. Go to the bottom of the article the section 'History of worldwide video game industry revenues', vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry to be fair I was responding to your first question referring to my first link, the link in the response shows that NES is not even the best selling console shown by actual units. As these two links prove you to be 100% wrong in your claim I am prepared to rest it at that. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 29, 2018 9:59:29 GMT
I found data showing that the price of the individual new consoles was higher, but not that sales were higher. That means they could well have a few elite customers willing to pay more for the new consoles, but not enough customers to bring revenues to former heights. All of which I could have guessed. I did not find 42 vs. 116 billion even using "find" feature of browser. Go to the bottom of the article the section 'History of worldwide video game industry revenues', vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry to be fair I was responding to your first question referring to my first link, the link in the response shows that NES is not even the best selling console shown by actual units. As these two links prove you to be 100% wrong in your claim I am prepared to rest it at that. Your data is still rather sketchy and includes coin operated games (in arcades) and home consoles that were also DVD movie players. Nevertheless I am prepared to grant you that the "number of dollars changing hands" peaked in 2000, but that was almost two decades ago. Measuring by hours played I don't believe you have challenged me at all. Call that "moving the goalposts" if you want. It remains a significant fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 29, 2018 10:01:24 GMT
... Do you really think they're manufacturing more consoles because less people are buying them and playing the games? You do realize how a business makes and loses money, yes? Buying more inventory than you sell is a good way to go out of business quickly. Do you know how long ago 2000 was? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 30, 2018 1:54:58 GMT
... Do you really think they're manufacturing more consoles because less people are buying them and playing the games? You do realize how a business makes and loses money, yes? Buying more inventory than you sell is a good way to go out of business quickly. Do you know how long ago 2000 was? Sure, but I chose that date to see whether older or newer games occupied the all-time best-seller list, because that date roughly splits the console gaming era evenly in two (NES came out in '85, so that's 15 years for the older games, 17 years for the newer ones). |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 30, 2018 9:56:16 GMT
Do you know how long ago 2000 was? Sure, but I chose that date to see whether older or newer games occupied the all-time best-seller list, because that date roughly splits the console gaming era evenly in two (NES came out in '85, so that's 15 years for the older games, 17 years for the newer ones). At the great risk of "moving the goalposts" yet again and expanding on my theme of number of hours played, I believe far more people played NES games than those on any other individual console. That is, they played using the console of a relative or friend. I suspect the number of people is comparable to the number of people who played real life softball at least once in their lives, in other words almost everybody. I suspect it was that interest that sustained the market for other consoles for much of their early years. I still see a steady decline otherwise. I attribute the success of NES to the fact it was a "cute toy" for kids, had a simple and easily learned controller, and was supported by so many other entertainment franchises with their production of game cartridges for the system. Later consoles were more violent, had complicated controllers, and less support from other entertainment franchises. Other consoles might have more games, but not from Walt Disney, Warner Brothers, various other movie franchises and so on. Franchises like the NFL might have appeared on most consoles though. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 1:42:27 GMT
Sure, but I chose that date to see whether older or newer games occupied the all-time best-seller list, because that date roughly splits the console gaming era evenly in two (NES came out in '85, so that's 15 years for the older games, 17 years for the newer ones). At the great risk of "moving the goalposts" yet again and expanding on my theme of number of hours played, I believe far more people played NES games than those on any other individual console. That is, they played using the console of a relative or friend. I suspect the number of people is comparable to the number of people who played real life softball at least once in their lives, in other words almost everybody. I suspect it was that interest that sustained the market for other consoles for much of their early years. I still see a steady decline otherwise. I attribute the success of NES to the fact it was a "cute toy" for kids, had a simple and easily learned controller, and was supported by so many other entertainment franchises with their production of game cartridges for the system. Later consoles were more violent, had complicated controllers, and less support from other entertainment franchises. Other consoles might have more games, but not from Walt Disney, Warner Brothers, various other movie franchises and so on. Franchises like the NFL might have appeared on most consoles though. Yeah, but just like every other claim you've made in this thread you're basing this on absolutely nothing. Not on consoles sold, not on games sold, not on length of games, not on any relevant studies... you're just... flat out making it up. When I was young and had an NES and later SNES, literally every single one of my friends and family members interested in gaming also had one, even though we often ended up playing on each others' systems as well. I have no idea where you're seeing a "steady decline" at, because it certainly isn't from any of the actual data that's been posted in this thread. Disney and movie franchises are still regularly making video games. Kingdom Hearts especially is a major contemporary franchise. The reason games got more violent and complex is because kids like me who grew up playing the NES and SNES are now adults and, like most adults, appreciate adult-themed media. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 2:07:46 GMT
At the great risk of "moving the goalposts" yet again and expanding on my theme of number of hours played, I believe far more people played NES games than those on any other individual console. That is, they played using the console of a relative or friend. I suspect the number of people is comparable to the number of people who played real life softball at least once in their lives, in other words almost everybody. I suspect it was that interest that sustained the market for other consoles for much of their early years. I still see a steady decline otherwise. I attribute the success of NES to the fact it was a "cute toy" for kids, had a simple and easily learned controller, and was supported by so many other entertainment franchises with their production of game cartridges for the system. Later consoles were more violent, had complicated controllers, and less support from other entertainment franchises. Other consoles might have more games, but not from Walt Disney, Warner Brothers, various other movie franchises and so on. Franchises like the NFL might have appeared on most consoles though. Yeah, but just like every other claim you've made in this thread you're basing this on absolutely nothing. Not on consoles sold, not on games sold, not on length of games, not on any relevant studies... you're just... flat out making it up. When I was young and had an NES and later SNES, literally every single one of my friends and family members interested in gaming also had one, even though we often ended up playing on each others' systems as well. I have no idea where you're seeing a "steady decline" at, because it certainly isn't from any of the actual data that's been posted in this thread. Disney and movie franchises are still regularly making video games. Kingdom Hearts especially is a major contemporary franchise. The reason games got more violent and complex is because kids like me who grew up playing the NES and SNES are now adults and, like most adults, appreciate adult-themed media. Aha, one of those "TV in every room" families, quite many families don't do that. Game cartridges were rather expensive when they first came out and having a copy for each person in a household didn't really make much sense. The cartridges that allowed games to be saved had the capacity to save one for at least three different people. "Adult themed media" as you put it is down from 2000 as you said yourself. See the pattern? The more graphic the violence in "games" the less it sells. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 2:20:20 GMT
Yeah, but just like every other claim you've made in this thread you're basing this on absolutely nothing. Not on consoles sold, not on games sold, not on length of games, not on any relevant studies... you're just... flat out making it up. When I was young and had an NES and later SNES, literally every single one of my friends and family members interested in gaming also had one, even though we often ended up playing on each others' systems as well. I have no idea where you're seeing a "steady decline" at, because it certainly isn't from any of the actual data that's been posted in this thread. Disney and movie franchises are still regularly making video games. Kingdom Hearts especially is a major contemporary franchise. The reason games got more violent and complex is because kids like me who grew up playing the NES and SNES are now adults and, like most adults, appreciate adult-themed media. Aha, one of those "TV in every room" families, quite many families don't do that. Game cartridges were rather expensive when they first came out and having a copy for each person in a household didn't really make much sense. The cartridges that allowed games to be saved had the capacity to save one for at least three different people. "Adult themed media" as you put it is down from 2000 as you said yourself. See the pattern? The more graphic the violence in "games" the less it sells. I didn't say "console for each family member" but "console for each family." I doubt seriously that's any different from back then to today. It's not like they're cheaper today. Where did you get that "Adult themed media" is down from 2000, or that I said it was? Grand Theft Auto V is a notoriously violent video game and it's the 3rd best selling game ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 2:45:30 GMT
1) ... When I was young and had an NES and later SNES, literally every single one of my friends and family members interested in gaming also had one ... 2) I didn't say "console for each family member" but "console for each family." I doubt seriously that's any different from back then to today. It's not like they're cheaper today. Say again. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 2:58:18 GMT
1) ... When I was young and had an NES and later SNES, literally every single one of my friends and family members interested in gaming also had one ... 2) I didn't say "console for each family member" but "console for each family." I doubt seriously that's any different from back then to today. It's not like they're cheaper today. Say again. Ah, I see the confusion. I don't have any siblings. Many of my family members do, but most back then weren't into gaming so the consoles belonged to those that were. With my friends, many had siblings and they often shared consoles, but I wasn't ever friends with both siblings. So the two statements aren't contradictory: All of my friends had consoles (that they often shared with others in their family), and all my family members interested in gaming had consoles. There might've been some family members I don't know about that shared consoles. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 3:25:10 GMT
Ah, I see the confusion. I don't have any siblings. Many of my family members do, but most back then weren't into gaming so the consoles belonged to those that were. With my friends, many had siblings and they often shared consoles, but I wasn't ever friends with both siblings. So the two statements aren't contradictory: All of my friends had consoles (that they often shared with others in their family), and all my family members interested in gaming had consoles. There might've been some family members I don't know about that shared consoles. That's interesting news about GTA. Where did you get it? Maybe here ? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 8:28:22 GMT
Ah, I see the confusion. I don't have any siblings. Many of my family members do, but most back then weren't into gaming so the consoles belonged to those that were. With my friends, many had siblings and they often shared consoles, but I wasn't ever friends with both siblings. So the two statements aren't contradictory: All of my friends had consoles (that they often shared with others in their family), and all my family members interested in gaming had consoles. There might've been some family members I don't know about that shared consoles. That's interesting news about GTA. Where did you get it? Maybe here ? I got it here. What you linked to there is the best selling franchises; I was talking individual games. Funny that GTA occupies the 3rd spot on both. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 10:40:54 GMT
That's interesting news about GTA. Where did you get it? Maybe here ? I got it here. What you linked to there is the best selling franchises; I was talking individual games. Funny that GTA occupies the 3rd spot on both. Even funnier is that a far less violent game/franchise holds the number one position in both lists. That weakens your argument for violent video games, no? However, fine, if you think GTA (?) sales support a view that violence in video games is popular, I suppose I made that topical and your data suggests that remote possibility. Trying to "prove" me wrong though with the data isn't working because all of it is rather sketchy. Some of it is about consoles, some of which also played DVD movies. Some of it includes coin operated arcade games. Some of it ignores inflation. Some of it dodges inflation by using number of units rather than their cost. Some of it includes games for cell phones, which I suspect are trimmed far down for the initial purchase. I am going to stand firm with "it seems to me" far more people enjoyed NES and near NES than other video games in their homes considering number of hours and number of people as well as those other factors. Another factor is how many people I see shopping for video games. I haven't seen any lately and I regularly check. I'm not counting solitaire, mahjong or Scrabble as "video" games because they can be, and still often are, played without monitors or computers. Here we go with sketchy data, huh? Some people prefer the sans computer version because that is one way to be certain there is no cheating. If you still think I'm ignoring "scientific" arguments, that is bizarre. I have never ignored your feeble attempts at science. I follow the links. I read the data. I explain what it could mean or not in better detail that your links. I don't have more scientific arguments because there aren't any. Science is about eliminating other factors in order to measure the influence of one. There are too many other factors in the jumble. There will be no hard scientific evidence for my claims or yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 1:58:38 GMT
I got it here. What you linked to there is the best selling franchises; I was talking individual games. Funny that GTA occupies the 3rd spot on both. Even funnier is that a far less violent game/franchise holds the number one position in both lists. That weakens your argument for violent video games, no? However, fine, if you think GTA (?) sales support a view that violence in video games is popular, I suppose I made that topical and your data suggests that remote possibility. It's not surprising at all. For one, Mario (especially) has been around much longer and the franchise has a variety of games in different genres that appeal to gamers of all ages and tastes. They have Mario adventure games, racing games, fighting games, sports games, RPGs, and probably others I'm forgetting. So I'd expect a franchise like that to be at the top of the best-selling franchise list. Tetris had similarly universal appeal. Mature games have a more limited audience because they're genre and age limited. It's the same principle with films where almost all the top-grossing films are PG or PG-13. In fact, last time I checked, there wasn't a single R-rated film in the top 50 highest grossing films. I don't know what you mean about "weakening my argument for violent video games." All I said in regards to that was when you said violent video games were on the rise and I said that was because those who grew up with NES and SNES were now at an age where they enjoy adult-themed games. That seems true given that two adult-themed franchises (GTA and Call of Duty) are in the top 4. Basically, all I was saying is that there is a market for adult-themed video games, not that kid-friendly games didn't have a market that was just as big or bigger. Trying to "prove" me wrong though with the data isn't working because all of it is rather sketchy. Some of it is about consoles, some of which also played DVD movies. Some of it includes coin operated arcade games. Some of it ignores inflation. Some of it dodges inflation by using number of units rather than their cost. Some of it includes games for cell phones, which I suspect are trimmed far down for the initial purchase. I am going to stand firm with "it seems to me" far more people enjoyed NES and near NES than other video games in their homes considering number of hours and number people as well as those other factors.And I'll repeat what I said before: "Yeah, but just like every other claim you've made in this thread you're basing this on absolutely nothing. Not on consoles sold, not on games sold, not on length of games, not on any relevant studies... you're just... flat out making it up." Another factor is how many people I see shopping for video games. I haven't seen any lately and I regularly check. I'm not counting solitaire, mahjong or Scrabble as "video" games because they can be, and still often are, played without monitors or computers. Here we go with sketchy data, huh? Some people prefer the sans computer version because that is one way to be certain there is no cheating. I don't see many people shopping for all kinds of things since the advent of online shopping. How many people do you see browsing for CDs these days? Hell, I do about 80% of my shopping online. Only thing I buy in stores are fresh groceries, but for most everything else I save myself the trip and buy online. If you still think I'm ignoring "scientific" arguments, that is bizarre. I have never ignored your feeble attempts at science. I follow the links. I read the data. I explain what it could mean or not in better detail that your links. I don't have more scientific arguments because there aren't any. Science is about eliminating other factors in order to measure the influence of one. There are too many other factors in the jumble. There will be no hard scientific evidence for my claims or yours. LOL All right. So at least now you're admitting to making all of your claims up! I'd say that when you have this evidence: 1. Each generation has sold more consoles than the previous generation. 2. The list of the top selling video games is dominated by games from the last 17 years 3. Modern games are much longer than older games Then the claim "less people are playing games today and not playing them as much" is an extremely dubious claim to make. But if it means that much to you, have at it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 3:24:57 GMT
I admire your attempts at science and wish you more success in the future. Snipping my arguments out and mindlessly repeating yours is not science though. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 3:32:58 GMT
I admire your attempts at science and wish you more success in the future. Snipping my arguments out and mindlessly repeating yours is not science though. I've never said anything about science in this thread. That's your shtick. I've just been arguing from the available data, while you've been making shit up. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 3:52:53 GMT
I admire your attempts at science and wish you more success in the future. Snipping my arguments out and mindlessly repeating yours is not science though. I've never said anything about science in this thread. That's your shtick. I've just been arguing from the available data, while you've been making shit up. Exactly, what science? The joke is old now. You are making up things you think your data is supposed to mean. It does not mean those things. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 4:34:01 GMT
I've never said anything about science in this thread. That's your shtick. I've just been arguing from the available data, while you've been making shit up. Exactly, what science? The joke is old now. You are making up things you think your data is supposed to mean. It does not mean those things. What things have I made up? I entered this discussion when you asked if any console had sold more than the NES, an I produced a link to which consoles had sold the most units. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 4:46:59 GMT
Exactly, what science? The joke is old now. You are making up things you think your data is supposed to mean. It does not mean those things. What things have I made up? I entered this discussion when you asked if any console had sold more than the NES, an I produced a link to which consoles had sold the most units. That's a lie. You are the one who made the issue the number of consoles. I noticed those "consoles" were also DVD movie players. You just refuse to give it up. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 4:51:59 GMT
What things have I made up? I entered this discussion when you asked if any console had sold more than the NES, an I produced a link to which consoles had sold the most units. That's a lie. You are the one who made the issue the number of consoles. I noticed those "consoles" were also DVD movie players. You just refuse to give it up. Nope, you asked about the number of consoles here: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/1470761/thread and I quote: "Has any game system ever sold as much as Nintendo NES?" I replied HERE with the link to the number of units sold. |
|
