Failed Switch predictions of analysts

[Zkuq]

Wyrdness said:

Zkuq said:

 

Expecting me to read every single post and open every single link in them is just stupid. I'm sorry, but that's what it is. You didn't even label your links properly so I had no idea what was going on behind them. Seriously, what should I expect from 'I think the threads here were more hilarious tbh.'? Just because you posts links to something doesn't mean I'm interested in what's behind them, and because you say you posted links doesn't mean I have to look for every single post of yours in this thread just to see which ones contain relevent links. If you want to prove a point, you should provide me with the posts directly and not point me to all around the place.

When you replied the first time I told you I'd linked the threads from there on out you have the knowledge of the links I'm not going to hold your hand and label every link just in case you turn up in a thread that type of thinking is even more daft on your part tbh as I said if you don't read through the thread it's not really my problem, numerous people have even quoted both set of links.

What are you meant to think of links? Well take a guess you're in a topic about predictions of analysts so what do you think the links were going to contain in that post topics on how to prepare pasta bake, you're going on about how in hind sight blah blah but then those topic highlight that even before hindsight some predictions were just silly even more highlighted that at first you didn't think anyone would even make such predictions.

I didn't expect you to have spread your links across multiple posts. I looked up one post and had no reason to assume there would be more. Also, I didn't talk anything about labeling every link individually. I gave an example of a horrible label that gave me no idea about what to expect.

This thread seems to originally be more about ridiculing predictions than properly discussing them, and that's how I'm going to treat links labeled with 'I think the threads here were more hilarious tbh.' unless given a reason to treat them otherwise. Also, my main point wasn't even about there not having been such bad predictions. It was just a side remark because I hadn't seen any such low predictions myself, which I took as a sign of there not having been many such predictions. I was sure there must have been such predictions but not having seen any, I assumed they would be relatively rare. They still don't seem common to me.

Miyamotoo said:

Zkuq said:

People thought the price was high. There were complaints about it all over the place. You can't possibly have missed that. It doesn't matter what's happening now because that's hindsight. If you want to talk about the accuracy of predictions, you can't use information that's available only after the prediction has been made. Back when the predictions were made, there were lots of complaints about the price and no one had bought the console yet, let alone tons of people. Criticism about the price was a valid concern back then. Like I said: Turns out price is not a problem, but people had every reason to assume it was back then. Also, it's completely irrelevant what you get for the price if people feel like the price is high.

Let me try to clarify this. I'm not arguing Switch is too expensive, or too expensive for what it has to offer. I'm also not trying to argue those predictions before the launch were correct. I'm only trying to argue that criticism about the price was valid before the launch because there were lots of complaints about the price.

I never said Zelda was the only exclusive. Read my post more carefully before you imply anything more about what I say. You're also looking at the target audience part differently than me. I'm not arguing it's not smart to try to attract both the home console and the handheld console audience at the same time. Again, read my post more carefully to see what I actually said about it.

As to your last paragraph, I must once again direct you to read my previous post more carefully. I must also ask: Did you give any though to my post or did you just jump to opposing things in it without thinking what I might have meant? I'm just saying there were a lot of reasons why people might have been skeptical about Switch before its launch, so it's understandable why the predictions might have been skeptical too. There were a lot of things backing up the success of the console as well, but there were also many negatives, and seeing whether the good things of the bad things were going to prevail was a pretty difficult thing if you really tried to think about it and assess all the things.

In case you're still not getting it: I'm not arguing anything about whether Switch is successful now, whether it offers enough good things to consumers, whether it's powerful enough or not, or anything about what we know now. I'm only trying to argue how it seemed back then when the predictions were made, which is mostly before the launch and before we knew anything about how things actually turned out. Everything that's happened after the predictions were made is hindsight, and everything's easy in hindsight. The predictions were wrong, but there were good reasons to be skeptical. You can criticize the predictions all you want, but ridiculing them for more or less reasonable reasoning seems stupid to me.

Long story in short, my last paragraph proves my point, all things that I mentioned kill any possible concerns that Switch will fail. All those concerns of some people were very shallow, while in same time they ignore or they didnt were aware of crucial positive things because Switch will be success. It was very obvious that Switch will sell more than 4-5m in 1st year, but this "analysts" failed to see that.

Price is one of the biggest factors in any product's success, so I don't think you can dismiss problems with it that easily. You would have to argue why the positive things trump the price instead of simply stating they do. The other problems probably wouldn't be big enough on their own, but stuff can add up, especially if there's bigger problems in combination. Also, saying the analysts ignored or weren't aware of the positives seems ignorant in itself, because even if you're aware of those things, it can still be difficult to see whether the positives or the negatives will prevail. How do you know the price is not too high compared to the positives, for example? A hunch, maybe?

I thought a good bit about the situation myself, trying to assess both the positives and the negatives, and I can't really say I knew which ones would prevail because there were both strong positives and strong negatives. I'd say that without access to more data or other knowledge to make reliable judgement about the situation, you can at best have a good hunch about how things are going. Maybe your instincts are good and it's all obvious to you so you can make correct predictions, but I bet that's not the case for most people.

Pyro as Bill said:
"I'm only trying to argue that criticism about the price was valid before the launch because there were lots of complaints about the price."

Complaints about the price were valid because there were lots of complaints about the price????

OK, I guess I could have phrased that better. I meant that because there were lots of complaints about the price, it was reasonable to assume that people find the price high, which might hint towards weaker sales performance.