Quantcast
Switch is selling better than PS4, PS2, PS1, PS3, X360 launch aligned

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Switch is selling better than PS4, PS2, PS1, PS3, X360 launch aligned

Haha, honestly...the only thing here impressive to me is the fact that every...single....PlayStation console is on this graph! ALL of em! That's just so freaking cool to me. The Xbox 360 was considered a huge HIT, and the PlayStation 3 (while I don't agree) is actually considered a flop to some. Ohhh man an 85+ million selling console being seen as a disappointment. Then what do you say about the OG Xbox, Gamecube and N64 systems selling like anywhere between the 15-30 million range. I'll count the days before I see a PS console sell less than even 60 million.

Sony really nailed the PlayStation brand as the greatest in gaming. There's just no denying it. Quickest to 100 million? Doesn't matter...I always cared more for the MARATHON.




"The Path of Excess leads to the tower of Wisdom."

Around the Network
StreaK said:
Haha, honestly...the only thing here impressive to me is the fact that every...single....PlayStation console is on this graph! ALL of em! That's just so freaking cool to me. The Xbox 360 was considered a huge HIT, and the PlayStation 3 (while I don't agree) is actually considered a flop to some. Ohhh man an 85+ million selling console being seen as a disappointment. Then what do you say about the OG Xbox, Gamecube and N64 systems selling like anywhere between the 15-30 million range. I'll count the days before I see a PS console sell less than even 60 million.

Sony really nailed the PlayStation brand as the greatest in gaming. There's just no denying it. Quickest to 100 million? Doesn't matter...I always cared more for the MARATHON.


There’s more to success than just unit sales 



StreaK said:
Haha, honestly...the only thing here impressive to me is the fact that every...single....PlayStation console is on this graph! ALL of em! That's just so freaking cool to me.


Not sure how anyone can look at what Wii did in the first 3-4 years and not call that impressive. But I digress



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

It's not a nitpick for someone to claim that it's close between the Switch and PS4 because it's had 2 official price cuts when on the graph there are 0 price cuts. How is that nitpicking? 

I'll break down my comment. My comment was "2 Official price cuts? Where did you get that from?


PS4's first official price cut was on the 9th October 2015. 2 years after launch. The switch hasn't even been out for 2 years."

1. I asked him where he got that figure from that is incorrect. Factual
2. I said the date PS4 got it's first official price cut. Factual.
4. I said the switch hasn't been out for 2 years. Factual
3. I said it was 2 years after launch. It was 23 months. But it's quite obvious why I said 2 years. I'm not gonna say it was 693 days, or whatever. That's the part you have an objection with that's the only factually 'incorrect' thing that I said. I should've just said 'approximately'. The graph this entire thread is based on doesn't even show the switch against a pricecut because in the launch alligned graphs that hasn't even happened yet. That's why I said you're nitpicking. 

Him saying that the PS4 has had 2 official price cuts in 23 months is ridiculously incorrect and I have no idea how anyone could say that pointing out that that's wrong on every level is nitpicking. 

It seems like at this point you just can't admit you were wrong ... I mean, we have been over this. We weren't talking about the graph. You made a comparison of 24 months. And I already went over in my first or second reply why it was ridiculous for you to say two years. It wasn't due to the fact that I was just being a fact nazi. I don't expect you to say the precise amount of days. The reason why it was ridiculous was because you made a comment about how the Switch hadn't even been out for two years, when in fact it has already been closer to it's 2nd year anniversary than the PS4 was when it got a price cut. Making your entire point invalid. 

Half of his comment was a factually incorrect statement, the other half was his argument. You corrected the factually inaccurate part, but made an inaccurate counter-argument when you were arguing against the 2nd part of his comment. I only argued against half of your comment, but I was at least arguing against a point you were making, not the factual correction. If you're going to say I'm nitpicking when I'm literally replying to an argument you're making ... then I don't think you're using that term correctly. If your entire point wasn't centered on which system has gone on the longest without a price cut, you'd be correct that it was a nitpick. Unfortunately, the part I replied to WAS about that. 

You are starting to twist the discussion into a post-factual one. You basically already admitted I was right earlier when you said that you didn't have any grievances with what I was saying, except that it was a minuscule point that I was focusing too much on. So what is it? Was it a wrong point, or a correct one that just frustrated you because it focused on something "minuscule"? And let me just say again, it wasn't a minuscule point. It was literally the only argument you brought up against Mandalore. Correcting someone isn't an argument in and of itself in that context. Mandalore's comment would have been better had he not said there was two price cuts, but his point still stands even when corrected. It's a little bit more ridiculous, sure, but that's it. Whereas the entire argument you brought up against him crumbles under the correction that the Switch has already gone on longer than the PS4 did with a price cut.

And this is just getting a tad ridiculous. No matter how much you shift discussion to the graph, it doesn't change what you said. I only replied to what you said, that's it. No matter how minuscule it was to you or no matter how much it doesn't relate to the graph, you aren't giving a valid argument against my reply to something you said. You are just shifting focus. If it didn't relate to the OP well .. maybe don't say it in the first place then? There's nothing wrong with having an incorrect counter-argument, we've all made them. But defending it on and on isn't doing any favors. 

Peace  

.....

 

I've said multiple times I was factually incorrect and that I was off by a couple weeks as I was making an approximation. I knew when PS4 launched and I google the date of the price cut and it was around 2 years. My approximation was slightly off. Which I already have admitted to several times. 

 

I'm saying it doesn't matter. 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

I know it launched on the 23rd (I think). But the point is still valid.

Actually your point is wrong. Had your point simply been "oh, the Switch hasn't been out for two years", you would have been correct. But that was just a supporting point you were making. What you were actually trying to get across with your comparison was that the PS4 got it's first official price cut when it had been out for two years, and that the Switch has not even been out for two years, so Mandalore's comparison is flawed because you can't say that the Switch is still selling at it's original price as a supporting point for the console when it hasn't even been out as long as the PS4 was when it got it's first price cut.

But this isn't correct. The Switch has already gone on longer than the PS4 did when it got it's first price cut. Unless you were making a different objection with the 2nd half of your comment to Mandalore's, what that objection could be I can't figure out in the slightest. At this point you should agree with Mandalore's overall point, the only thing he really got wrong was saying that the PS4 up to this point had two official price cuts, but that was only half of your reply.

Hope you get what I mean. 

Decided to go back and see where this all went wrong. 

Days since switch launched: 708

Days till PS4 got a price cut: 693. 

 

 

I entirely see the point you're making. Like I fully 100% understand what you're saying. But like I was saying before in the context of talking about the data that the entire thread is based on. It doesn't matter as these are December figures. 

Why? Because he replied to my post about the figures on the graph. But again, even if we were talking in today's context I still would've said the same thing cause I wouldn't have cared enough to check the literal number of days because his comment was so crazy. 

 

I'd like to think I'd put a lot of effort into every single post I make on here but I don't, the only work I did was Google the first price drop, see his comment was wildly incorrect, see it was around 2 years after  launch ndd that the switch is still a month away from being 2 years old. 

 

Is your point correct? Sure, it is. I haven't disputed that much. My point is that it doesn't matter. 

 

I'll hold my hands up and say I should've added onto the end of my comment. 

 

"We'll see what happens ehew we get January numbers and see how the price drop effects things". That probably would've avoided everything. 



Around the Network

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Nintendo would have to epically screw the pooch for Switch to sell less than 100 million lifetime at this point. With even halfway competent handling from here on out it'll outsell PS3, PS1, and 360 comfortably.

All they need to do now is stay the course, make sure Switch is supplied with meaningful software for the next four years, cut the price over time, do multiple hardware revisions, and it's in the bag.



Stop fooling yourselves dummies EA hve more revenue that Nintendo how pathetic that could be? You. Nintendo is a joke.



ArchangelMadzz said:

I just want to say that even though my replies were long (kind of a bad habit of mine, lol) I wasn't upset. I will admit that I did get a little bit frustrated with the last reply but that was only because, to me, it seemed like you were dodging the point of the conversation.  All I intended to do originally was to correct you on your point to Mandalore, just like you corrected Mandalore on his point. I focused much more on the point you brought for consideration because ... there was no reason to focus on your correction of Mandalore, since I already agreed. So when you kept saying that it wasn't important or that it didn't matter, I was getting a bit frustrated. 

I kept trying to end it at the correction many times, but the conversation ended up going past it's expiration date because I was accused of "nitpicking", even though just like you all I did was make a correction, lol. You asked me what you said that was wrong, I reiterated. I tried to end the conversation three times prior to the last time (four total). But yes, you are right, it doesn't matter in the overall grand scheme of this thread. I will admit that I don't see why your correction to Mandalore is any more important to the graph than my correction to you (because your correction to Mandalore is talking about something that contextually takes place after Switch's December sales anyways, as does my correction, so they're equally important), but yeah. This doesn't need to be discussed any further, haha. Everything is fine! 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
DonFerrari said:

Long term it could mean that PS4 would have more space for further pricecuts, but since Sony have been holding the price on 299 (I believe we have had 2 official pricecuts of 50 right?) that argument of pricecut could become a burden for switch in the future considering that after the total of 100 USD pricecut it gone to sell like 18-20-18M and that is quite hard to achieve.

But while both trade the lead aligned this will remain interesting to see, and I think it may take possibly 24M for PS4 to not be passed again by Switch (I firmly believe Switch will end 80-100M Total).

OOF. Now you're basically asking me to give a lifetime prediction xD 

Well ... errhmmm .... 

I can't give one! I keep going back in forth in my head. If they release a Switch lite this year, then I think it should be pretty easy to predict where the console goes in terms of lifetime sales after this fiscal year is over. 

Sorry if seemed like that. You don't need to, I put mine because I wanted.

StreaK said:
Haha, honestly...the only thing here impressive to me is the fact that every...single....PlayStation console is on this graph! ALL of em! That's just so freaking cool to me. The Xbox 360 was considered a huge HIT, and the PlayStation 3 (while I don't agree) is actually considered a flop to some. Ohhh man an 85+ million selling console being seen as a disappointment. Then what do you say about the OG Xbox, Gamecube and N64 systems selling like anywhere between the 15-30 million range. I'll count the days before I see a PS console sell less than even 60 million.

Sony really nailed the PlayStation brand as the greatest in gaming. There's just no denying it. Quickest to 100 million? Doesn't matter...I always cared more for the MARATHON.


Don't worry, Sony <100~M flop, others >30M success, you just have to accept people expectations.

PortisheadBiscuit said:
StreaK said:
Haha, honestly...the only thing here impressive to me is the fact that every...single....PlayStation console is on this graph! ALL of em! That's just so freaking cool to me.


Not sure how anyone can look at what Wii did in the first 3-4 years and not call that impressive. But I digress

Because no one have to praise all systems at all posts... and achieving 4 times instead of once is quite impressive.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

OOF. Now you're basically asking me to give a lifetime prediction xD 

Well ... errhmmm .... 

I can't give one! I keep going back in forth in my head. If they release a Switch lite this year, then I think it should be pretty easy to predict where the console goes in terms of lifetime sales after this fiscal year is over. 

Sorry if seemed like that. You don't need to, I put mine because I wanted.

StreaK said:
Haha, honestly...the only thing here impressive to me is the fact that every...single....PlayStation console is on this graph! ALL of em! That's just so freaking cool to me. The Xbox 360 was considered a huge HIT, and the PlayStation 3 (while I don't agree) is actually considered a flop to some. Ohhh man an 85+ million selling console being seen as a disappointment. Then what do you say about the OG Xbox, Gamecube and N64 systems selling like anywhere between the 15-30 million range. I'll count the days before I see a PS console sell less than even 60 million.

Sony really nailed the PlayStation brand as the greatest in gaming. There's just no denying it. Quickest to 100 million? Doesn't matter...I always cared more for the MARATHON.


Don't worry, Sony <100~M flop, others >30M success, you just have to accept people expectations.

PortisheadBiscuit said:

Not sure how anyone can look at what Wii did in the first 3-4 years and not call that impressive. But I digress

Because no one have to praise all systems at all posts... and achieving 4 times instead of once is quite impressive.

Never said that, to say Sony is the ONLY thing impressive on this particular graph (which shows Wii outpacing all other systems the first 3 years by a huge margin) is untrue. It's all in the verbiage, there's a huge difference in saying "wow impressive from Sony to have 4 consoles on this graph" than "nothing else is impressive from this list but Sony".