killeryoshis said: PC gaming wasn't competition in the 80s but now it is? How does that work? Is it because multiplatorm games between PC and consoles didn't exist at the time? If anything that should helps the current generation systems! The NES could only wish to get some PC multiplatform games. The NES had to depend on mostly Japan for its games. Which doesn't have a strong PC market over there. Sega was a small time company and had 33% of the marketshare. MS is a big time company that casn get like 35% to 40% of the market I believe. The difference between competition is not that significant. Now who is the bigger competion another arguement but I this is not the time nor place. Again I did not take into consideration PC gaming for ether era which again leans into more of help the NES cause. I posted that link to show that mobile to show that Handheld gaming mostly fell due to dumb decesions not really just to mobile gaming. Mobile gaming could be a cause but that wasn't the point. I was just trying to show that Mobile gaming is not really going to make a decent dent to Home Console sales if they don't effect Handhelds as much. (Again if it does at all. Another argument could be made here if mobile does anything to Handhelds but this is not the time nor the place) Also Social Media, Streaming and Smartphones don't really make a big difference compared to the opening of new markets like Eastern Europe. They do not have the same impact as entire populations growing. Can Social Media effect sales? Of course but they are no where near as big as bigger word markets and population growth. More competition in the home console space is a much bigger deal then all three of those things you listed combined. Let alone everything else I mentioned. There could be more but I need to think of them. |
1. Of course, PC gaming is more of a competition now that it was before. The shared library assures that. And PC games aren't helping the current consoles - it's the other way round. Console games, which used to be console only, are now helping the PC by being available there.
2. It doesn't matter that MS can't get that marketshare - it just shows that the PS brand is very strong. What matters is that MS is a stronger competitor than Sega was. I would say they garnered around 45% of the core gaming marketshare in the previous gen with the X360 (and no the Wii didn't get a big share of that market as it sold to non-gamers).
3. I'm glad that you agree that the Japanese home console market is not what it used to be.
4. What is the opening of new markets if, globally, people are having less free time to spend on traditional entertainment medium? If someone has a few hours of free time a day but spends that time on Netflix and social media, what is left for gaming on traditional gaming consoles?
5. I agree with you - conditions are different back from then from now but I still think the PS4 is doing more against much more adversity. I still think the lack of strong competitors and the video gaming crash (it left a void in the market to be filled) both helped the NES.
Multi-console ownership helps inflate overall sales but availability of multiple consoles decreases sale of a system.
Multi-media functions - well, we know that people are buying systems for that these games as the PS4 had none on release.