Quantcast
Console Wars are mostly dead...

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Console Wars are mostly dead...

Zoombael said:
..are we gonna hold hands and sing a cheesy hippie song about world peace and baby Jesus, or what?

Yes, we are.



Around the Network

thismeintiel said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

You are still arguing against something I didn't say.  Do you know what a straw man is?

Do you?  I'm sure you aware of the definition, but do you actually know how to recognize it?

There is nothing I touched upon that wasn't a direct response to what you have written.  You argued it was more important to launch early.  I gave you a few examples that disproved that.  You gave a whole spiel about how power doesn't really help, and I gave a counterargument as to why that isn't true.  Being much more powerful than the Switch is exactly why someone is going to pick the PS5 over it, the Switch's price and library be damned.  Like I said, it's the same reason the PS4 still sold so well against it.

The jump in power, while still bringing it out at a reasonable price, is exactly why Sony and MS are waiting.  In the end, that will help them, not hurt them. And if you hadn't noticed, the PS4 was the more powerful console this gen, yet it won.  Power never hurts.  The problem in the past is that the most powerful console always just happened to be the most expensive one, by far.  This gen, that changed.  And even if Sony has the more powerful console next gen (it probably won't be by much), it will be the same price as the Scarlett, so power won't hurt.

Yes, I know how to recognize a straw man.  It's where you make someone else have a worse argument, so that you can defeat it easily.  It looks exactly like how you first replied to me:

thismeinteil said:
"The Saturn launched months before the PS1.  The Dreamcast launched over a year before the PS2.  There's much more to it than launching early.  By your reasoning, those two should have been successes."

Notice how you are reasoning for me and coming to a conclusion that I definitely don't agree with.  That is a textbook version of what a straw man argument looks like.

Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 04 November 2019

thismeintiel said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

You are still arguing against something I didn't say.  Do you know what a straw man is?

Do you?  I'm sure you aware of the definition, but do you actually know how to recognize it?

There is nothing I touched upon that wasn't a direct response to what you have written.  You argued it was more important to launch early.  I gave you a few examples that disproved that.  You gave a whole spiel about how power doesn't really help, and I gave a counterargument as to why that isn't true.  Being much more powerful than the Switch is exactly why someone is going to pick the PS5 over it, the Switch's price and library be damned.  Like I said, it's the same reason the PS4 still sold so well against it.

The jump in power, while still bringing it out at a reasonable price, is exactly why Sony and MS are waiting.  In the end, that will help them, not hurt them. And if you hadn't noticed, the PS4 was the more powerful console this gen, yet it won.  Power never hurts.  The problem in the past is that the most powerful console always just happened to be the most expensive one, by far.  This gen, that changed.  And even if Sony has the more powerful console next gen (it probably won't be by much), it will be the same price as the Scarlett, so power won't hurt.

I think console power is very much overstated. If the Wii didn't already make that abundantly clear I'm not sure what would. Xbox was more powerful than PS2 (as was GameCube) yet both were trounced by PS2. B/c PS2 had an insane library of games.

Ultimately the library is what matters most. People only use the hardware to play the games.

Not saying power hurts but you could easily have the weakest machine out of all the contenders and still run away in the sales race b/c people care about the games first and foremost.

PS4 also has more sales than the Switch currently b/c it was on the market for several years longer than Switch...



thismeintiel said:
RolStoppable said:

Most people who use your flawed argument for why Switch is a hybrid try to argue that Nintendo did it because of their home console sales, not their handheld console sales. But eh... I don't think there will be any progress on this point of discussion.

Yes, the Arcade could use an HDD, but only a Microsoft-branded one that costed $100. That's why the $399 SKU sold so much better; it was $100 more and came with an HDD along with several other extras such as a wireless controller instead of a wired one. The Arcade SKU was totally gimped.

Switch being a success has nothing to do with luck. Feel free to list the logical reasons for why Switch could have failed. Chances are that those reasons were addressed by my thread.

Flawed to only those blinded by bias. You can choose to ignore that the HH market shrank incredibly going from DS/PSP to 3DS/Vita, but it doesn't change it from being a fact. Numbers don't lie.

Still going to need that research and data from you. 

Lol, don't get so offended. Didn't say it was all down to luck. In fact, I posted why it succeeded. And pointing to that thread is pointless. You can say why you disagree with how things will turn out, but to actually say that their arguments lacked any logic reeks of bias.

You neither know what a straw man is nor when something is driven by bias. If you are so convinced that the arguments for failure of Switch had logic to them, then you should explain why that was the case instead of deflecting over and over again.

Regarding the first two Xbox 360 SKUs, here's an article to read:
https://www.cnet.com/reviews/microsoft-360-xbox-core-system-preview/

The idea that the cheaper SKU was selling better is laughable because it was so gimped. I have to correct myself on one thing, that is that the original entry model of the 360 was called Core, not Arcade like I mistakingly said. The Arcade SKU replaced Core in October 2007 while retaining the $279 price.

Price cuts were kept track of on this website:
https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Price_cuts

Both Sony and Microsoft made a lot of SKU changes in 2007, here's what each company had on offer by November 2007, one year after the PS3's launch:

Xbox 360 - $279 Arcade, $349 20GB, $449 120GB.
PS3 - $399 40GB, $499 80GB.

So the $200 difference that you said held true for three years isn't anywhere close to true. The difference between the most bought models at that point (20GB 360 and 40GB PS3) was only $50 one year after the PS3's launch. The $200 difference between the PS3 and 360 held only true for eight months; naturally, I am not using the $499 20GB SKU of the PS3 for comparison because the $599 60GB SKU was the better selling one during the first eight months.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

The war is alive, even within VGC, you just have to look to some threads and posts.



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

Around the Network
Conina said:
RolStoppable said:

An anecdote of a PS4 purchase doesn't hold much weight because the alternatives in that generation were very weak. Also, most PS+ subscribers don't download their free games. Even the highly popular Rocket League was downloaded by only about half of the subscribers at the time and that's the best case scenario. Download rates for other games can be expected to be (well) below 10% of active subscribers during any given month, so that's a few million people at best.

Do we have numbers for that? Or is it only an anecdote which doesn't hold much weight?

First year of PS4 if I'm not wrong Shuhei Yoshida said that a lot of the Indie Games even though were free people didn't download and many that did haven't opened the game.

Don't know how much it changed by this time.



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:
The war is alive, even within VGC, you just have to look to some threads and posts.

Yeah. Just because it is pretty much one-sided on on of the fronts doesn’t mean it’s over. Also some switch vs PS4 threads here can be hilarious. 



 

Alby_da_Wolf said:
d21lewis said:

The current state of things:

Sony fans are mostly content knowing that the PS4 was a smash success. Great hardware, great games, and great sales. Virtually no competition. PSVR also makes it unique and standout from the pack. Exclusives continue to arrive at a time when support normally starts winding down.

Xbox fans have to be satisfied knowing that at least one version of their console offers the best experience (if not exactly noticeably better) for multi platform games. Gamepass Ultimate may be the best value in gaming. Aside from PC, the Xbox One is second to none when it comes to extra apps and features.

Nintendo fans are treated to a charming console, beloved by everyone. Great sales, exclusive software and the best third party support Nintendo has received in ages. 

The consoles even play well together with certain games supporting online cross play. All three brands seem to be making good profits and all fan bases seem content. All is right with the world. The war is over... but how does that make you feel?

As hardcore gamers, half the fun is being able to talk shit about the competition. This gen has mostly been boring in that regard. Nobody likes a one-sided fight. No price wars because of a lack of competition. Next gen a whole new war with new bullet points and different bragging rights will likely appear but for now, all is quiet. Do you miss the excitement or do you like the peace?

Mnementh said:
Next year Google Stadia, PS5 and NextBox launch. While Nintendo has a stable hardware, the Switch will get new obsession over which games it gets and which not. So be content, the fighting will start next year anew.


OK, both to make Lewis happy and to move forward with the work, we could start now.

Those that think Google Stadia or any other game streaming platform will win next gen are casual losers!    

BAAHAHAHAHA!

There you have it everyone, whatever names you gave to fans of other consoles mean nothing. Google Stadia fans are casual losers, the scum of the scum!

Not only are they JUST casual gamers, but they're fucking LOSERS! 



Calm before the storm.
Sony has lost the portable war just like Atari and Sega did before they were forced out of the console business so they know they have a huge battle coming up.
History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme. Nintendo is gearing up to take on the 4K twins with the HD-Wii console that hardcore gamers have been waiting over a decade for so it's going to be harder than ever for Sony.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

The_Liquid_Laser said:

thismeintiel said:

Do you?  I'm sure you aware of the definition, but do you actually know how to recognize it?

There is nothing I touched upon that wasn't a direct response to what you have written.  You argued it was more important to launch early.  I gave you a few examples that disproved that.  You gave a whole spiel about how power doesn't really help, and I gave a counterargument as to why that isn't true.  Being much more powerful than the Switch is exactly why someone is going to pick the PS5 over it, the Switch's price and library be damned.  Like I said, it's the same reason the PS4 still sold so well against it.

The jump in power, while still bringing it out at a reasonable price, is exactly why Sony and MS are waiting.  In the end, that will help them, not hurt them. And if you hadn't noticed, the PS4 was the more powerful console this gen, yet it won.  Power never hurts.  The problem in the past is that the most powerful console always just happened to be the most expensive one, by far.  This gen, that changed.  And even if Sony has the more powerful console next gen (it probably won't be by much), it will be the same price as the Scarlett, so power won't hurt.

Yes, I know how to recognize a straw man.  It's where you make someone else have a worse argument, so that you can defeat it easily.  It looks exactly like how you first replied to me:

thismeinteil said:
"The Saturn launched months before the PS1.  The Dreamcast launched over a year before the PS2.  There's much more to it than launching early.  By your reasoning, those two should have been successes."

Notice how you are reasoning for me and coming to a conclusion that I definitely don't agree with.  That is a textbook version of what a straw man argument looks like.

Except your argument was exactly that.  That launching early definitely helps.  Your words, not mine.  You said it was because it gave the earlier console time to adjust price and gain a year's worth of a gaming library.  I simply pointed out how that is wrong.  You can call that a strawman all day if you want, but that is just refuting your actual point.  The Dreamcast ultimately destroys your conclusion.  It launched over a year before the PS2.  It launched for $100 less than the PS2 and they even dropped the price by $50 in time for the PS2 launch.  And it had a decent library already out and announced to come.  It still failed.  Even against consoles that launched 2 years after it launched, when it was $99.

You also said power was a factor that does not help and waiting to launch is always a bad move.  Again, your words, not mine.  I won't repeat my argument about that, again, but I also explained why that won't matter for core gamers.

DarthMetalliCube said:
thismeintiel said:

Do you?  I'm sure you aware of the definition, but do you actually know how to recognize it?

There is nothing I touched upon that wasn't a direct response to what you have written.  You argued it was more important to launch early.  I gave you a few examples that disproved that.  You gave a whole spiel about how power doesn't really help, and I gave a counterargument as to why that isn't true.  Being much more powerful than the Switch is exactly why someone is going to pick the PS5 over it, the Switch's price and library be damned.  Like I said, it's the same reason the PS4 still sold so well against it.

The jump in power, while still bringing it out at a reasonable price, is exactly why Sony and MS are waiting.  In the end, that will help them, not hurt them. And if you hadn't noticed, the PS4 was the more powerful console this gen, yet it won.  Power never hurts.  The problem in the past is that the most powerful console always just happened to be the most expensive one, by far.  This gen, that changed.  And even if Sony has the more powerful console next gen (it probably won't be by much), it will be the same price as the Scarlett, so power won't hurt.

I think console power is very much overstated. If the Wii didn't already make that abundantly clear I'm not sure what would. Xbox was more powerful than PS2 (as was GameCube) yet both were trounced by PS2. B/c PS2 had an insane library of games.

Ultimately the library is what matters most. People only use the hardware to play the games.

Not saying power hurts but you could easily have the weakest machine out of all the contenders and still run away in the sales race b/c people care about the games first and foremost.

PS4 also has more sales than the Switch currently b/c it was on the market for several years longer than Switch...

Ah, but the Wii was also the weakest leader we have ever had.  Not talking in terms of power there, but in terms of dominating the competition.  The PS3 was less than 15M away from it, and I believe 360 was 16M away from it.  The Wii is kind of like the Switch, really.  Core gamers wanted an actual upgrade in the power of their console, so bought either a 360 or PS3.  They may have bought the Wii as a secondary console, but they still wanted power for devs to create larger, more detailed games.

PS2, while technically less powerful than those other two, was still in the same ballpark as them.  If it had been just a PS 1.2, and focused on the Eye Toy as big part of it, you can bet that the Gamecube and the Xbox would have done much better. 

So, when people say power isn't important, that's only slightly true.  Small differences in power, like 10%-20%, doesn't really matter.  When we are talking almost a gen of difference, or more, it definitely matters.

RolStoppable said:
thismeintiel said:

Flawed to only those blinded by bias. You can choose to ignore that the HH market shrank incredibly going from DS/PSP to 3DS/Vita, but it doesn't change it from being a fact. Numbers don't lie.

Still going to need that research and data from you. 

Lol, don't get so offended. Didn't say it was all down to luck. In fact, I posted why it succeeded. And pointing to that thread is pointless. You can say why you disagree with how things will turn out, but to actually say that their arguments lacked any logic reeks of bias.

You neither know what a straw man is nor when something is driven by bias. If you are so convinced that the arguments for failure of Switch had logic to them, then you should explain why that was the case instead of deflecting over and over again.

Regarding the first two Xbox 360 SKUs, here's an article to read:
https://www.cnet.com/reviews/microsoft-360-xbox-core-system-preview/

The idea that the cheaper SKU was selling better is laughable because it was so gimped. I have to correct myself on one thing, that is that the original entry model of the 360 was called Core, not Arcade like I mistakingly said. The Arcade SKU replaced Core in October 2007 while retaining the $279 price.

Price cuts were kept track of on this website:
https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Price_cuts

Both Sony and Microsoft made a lot of SKU changes in 2007, here's what each company had on offer by November 2007, one year after the PS3's launch:

Xbox 360 - $279 Arcade, $349 20GB, $449 120GB.
PS3 - $399 40GB, $499 80GB.

So the $200 difference that you said held true for three years isn't anywhere close to true. The difference between the most bought models at that point (20GB 360 and 40GB PS3) was only $50 one year after the PS3's launch. The $200 difference between the PS3 and 360 held only true for eight months; naturally, I am not using the $499 20GB SKU of the PS3 for comparison because the $599 60GB SKU was the better selling one during the first eight months.

If you weren't so blinded by bias, you would have seen in my previous posts when I actually explained why those predictions were grounded in logic.  I won't repeat it, again, as that would just be a waste of my time.

Still waiting for your research and data on what each model of the 360 sold.

Funny you claim that I don't know what a strawman is, and then go on to try and use one in your argument (the bolded.)  I already corrected myself a few posts ago, yet you tried to reduce my argument back to what I originally stated.  The things that make you go hmmm.