kame-sennin said:
The problem with these two points is that they're subjective. Your definition of quality is not the same as the vast majority of consumers. You're also under the mistaken impression that only new software is relevant to new buyers. The long tale of most Wii software shows that the opposite is true. Wii owners and potential Wii owners will take their time buying software and are not turned off by old releases. Furthermore, they believe that the Wii has the superior library. If they didn't, they wouldn't buy the Wii and Wii software in such large numbers.
The Wii is selling on its motion controls and popular media reception, not its games library. Furthermore the video gaming market in terms of sales is incredibly frontloaded. The Wii might do more to shake this trend because of the nature of its fanbase, but it still rings true for every console. The PC, perhaps not.
I don't believe they think the Wii has the superior library, because I don't think they are buying the Wii based on aggregate lists of games. They are buying the Wii because its the cool new device to own, any software sales thereafter are from walking in a store and picking out what appeals to them.
If you want to talk about the casual market you can't hold them to the same standards we use to decide which console to buy. Thats where your argument falls apart.
kame-sennin said:
While I don't think a losing console can be turned around at this stage of the game, moderately successful (PS1, DS) consoles can be ignited by the right software (FF, Nintendogs). And old hardware (GB) can find new life with the right title (Pokemon). Throughout the history of the industry, it has always been believed that software sells hardware. It is only now that the games believed to be console saviors - GTA, Halo, MGS - the games that drove hardware sales in the past, have failed to ignite their respective systems that people claim the theory is broken. Adding to this misconception is the confusing success of software that gaf hates, fueling the Wii. The reality is that trends change, consumers are fickle, and value is subjective. When all these things change at once, it's called a paradigm shift.
The theory is broken if it can't be used to predict the future, period. A theory is completely worthless if it can only be used to justify events that have happened in the past. People believing that previously popular title like GT and MGS that sold very well on the PS2 would propell the PS3 was completely reasonable.
What happened was that people who had bought that console went out and bought those games, not the other way around. People buy consoles, and within that framework buy games. Thats my "theory" as to why consoles with unanimously better lineups (DC vs PS2, the early years) can fail. Theres much more the hardware sales than the devices software lineup.
Halo was the hook of the Xbox, DVD's were the hook of the PS2, the Wii Mote is the hook of the Wii. People think Wii Sports is selling Wiis because its a game, I disagree. I think Wii sports perfectly showcases the capabilites of the system, and that got people excited.