By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
AlfredoTurkey on 15 February 2016
Edit Thread
Mr Puggsly said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

I don't have an anti Xbox agenda. I gamed on that platform from 2002 to this year. I just believe that they're not interested in competeing in the home console market anymore. I'm entitled to that opinion. You don't have to agree, but please try not to lobby assumptions about my motives and/or character. It doesn't do you any favors in a debate or exchange and only serves to derail your original argument, whatever that may be.

As far as Vita and Wii-U bombing, I don't have the data on Vita what Nintendo's gaming division made more money than Sony's gaming division last quarter so, no, it didn't bomb. 

I'm making an assumption based on your words and the things you conveniently ignore. MS isn't in the console market solely for gaming but its crucial part of having a successful entertainment device. Therefore MS employees people who are passionate about gaming to handle that. The same thing goes for Sony by the way, Playstation is not just a gaming device and Sony uses the Playstation brand to push services that have nothing to do with gaming.

Its a safe bet Nintendo is relying on 3DS for profits these days. The Wii U is their biggest home console failure ever, which is most surprising given it followed their biggest console success ever.

You don't need data on Vita. Its lack of support and being virutally non existent at many retailers says it all.

Microsoft didn't hire people who were passionate about gaming. They hired Don Mattrick. They were trying to do a bait an switch, and failed. Putting Phil in place was a move to improve their gaming division, sure. But I don't believe they're interested in competeing in consoles anymore. If they were, you wouldn't see them letting their biggest and best IP go to PC. You wouldn't see them letting Titanfall go. You wouldn't see them letting the COD marketing business go. The Xbox platform is owned by the richest company out of the three by miles. They could afford to spend big, but they're not. Why? To me, it's obvious. There's no "winning" by doing what they're trying to do. They're not even competeing anymore. 

And as far as units sold, it does not equal failure or success, profits do. I use to think just like you, but recently, I've come to realize that it's foolish and arbitrary to use "units sold" as a means of judging a companies successes. Nintendo is making a killing. They're doing better than either company when it comes to gaming. So, really, who's the victor? The company that sells the most pieces of plastic? Or the company that makes the most money? Ideally, those two things should go hand in hand, but they obviously don't and we're all foolish for buying into the pissing contest of "unit sales".