View Post

[DonFerrari]

Pinkie_pie said:

DonFerrari said:

Surely would increase sales of SW as the owner of the console would still be alive to keep buying.

And did you explain how or why X1 would had 35M (over 65% of increase in LT) more sales because of GTA VI? You didn't. If PS4 received GTA VI then would it add 30M to LT and cross 150-160M sales or would it add 65% sales and near 200M sales? Or GTA improves only Xbox sales?

Microsoft screwed up xbox one from the start. I never said xbox one would sell 80 million with gta6. Maybe around 70m. im expecting the next xbox to sell 80m+ because of gta6 and microsoft wouldnt mess up the announcement again. 

Ok so another 25M on X1 due to GTA6... so how much more would PS4 sell because of GTA 6?

You seem to forget that X360 achieved 85M no only by making everything right (besides RROD, but that didn't really dropped the sales from what we can see on graphics) and Sony fucking up everything. X1 will sell about 50M after making blunders but correcting most of it withing 6 months (instead of 3+ years that Sony needed to make PS3 both cost competitive and with third party performance) and Sony making most things right. I don't know why do you think they will achieve the same 80+M without Sony fucking up.

RolStoppable said:

fatslob-:O said:

Haha, you just went off rails ... 

I don't consider it a win anyways when you won't admit you're wrongs ... 

There's no point where I would have to admit that I am wrong.

In regards to the question of generations, you've said that it's not definitive yet, so even by your logic Switch might be considered gen 9 eventually when its lifecycle is long enough.

In regards to Switch not competing in the home console market, you've been unable to provide proof for your claim. You like to refer to Switch as a handheld, but it's a $300 console with $60 games, both values being far above the typical prices of handhelds in the past. How do you explain why it sells so well?

In regards to the blue ocean point, you have argued based on the assumption that the Switch has no part in the home console market and must be viewed only in a handheld context, hence why you keep saying monopoly, but ignore the new value proposition of home console games being able to be played on the go on a whim; a value that puts Switch both in the home console and handheld market. What you need for this point is the proof that Switch is not competing in the home console market, but you don't have it.

The PS3 wasn't a home console since at the time a 599 device wasn't a typical price for console.

fatslob-:O said:

RolStoppable said:

There's no point where I would have to admit that I am wrong.

In regards to the question of generations, you've said that it's not definitive yet, so even by your logic Switch might be considered gen 9 eventually when its lifecycle is long enough.

Ding! Ding! 

Righto you are but for now the Switch is firmly joining the 8th generation ... 

RolStoppable said:

In regards to Switch not competing in the home console market, you've been unable to provide proof for your claim. You like to refer to Switch as a handheld, but it's a $300 console with $60 games, both values being far above the typical prices of handhelds in the past. How do you explain why it sells so well?

Pricing and system design are not mutually exclusive. For example, TurboExpress by NEC and N-Gage by Nokia both launched at $299 USD ...

As for why Switch is successful at that price point, you forget about inflation. Consumers typically do not keep the same pricing expectations for everything over time and that especially applies to electronics such as game consoles. Either Sony or Microsoft will come out successful regardless of a potential $499 USD launch price tag and I imagine that Nintendo will bump the price of their Switch successor by another $50 to a total of $349 USD ... 

RolStoppable said:

In regards to the blue ocean point, you have argued based on the assumption that the Switch has no part in the home console market and must be viewed only in a handheld context, hence why you keep saying monopoly, but ignore the new value proposition of home console games being able to be played on the go on a whim; a value that puts Switch both in the home console and handheld market. What you need for this point is the proof that Switch is not competing in the home console market, but you don't have it.

It's "new value proposition" doesn't seem to change the Switch's sales curve all that much since it's performing close enough to the 3DS which was nearly a monopoly back then as well. The Sega Nomad offered a similar concept to the Switch by being able to play "home console games" (whatever that means) on the go as well ... (both sound practically identical in terms of feature set on the high level) 

A portable console being able to play "home console games" (meaningless qualifier) is not a feature unique to the Switch ... 

Your argument of a "unique value proposition" in case of the Switch has NO real meaning since you have yet to truly differentiate between "home console games" and "portable console games" ... (just calling Switch games as "home console games" is not good enough to establish that the Switch is in direct competition to the PS4/X1 which are true home console designs in the sense of the definition) 

Not to forget that PSP and PSVita proposition were also "console level games on the go" even if the native games weren't the same disc or game on console. Still you could have pairing of console with HH to "stream" the game, and also could connect the HH to the TV.