Wyrdness said:
Many products just copy what is already popular that is the problem with that particular point you're arguing and few products go for a differing approach to what already is working hence when something does do something different a load of clones start appearing of the product hoping to get a piece of the pie. It's not more products that bring in more consumers it's approach and a single product can bring in more consumers by itself in future if an approach is adjusted, more products doesn't lead to more consumers. Market shifts do explain that I don't think you fully understand the points being put forward to you, if portables and home consoles are beginning to offer pretty much the same experience as opposed to alternative experiences from each other and the regional markets have had a shift in consumers then it is pretty easy to understand that the western push toward home consoles would affect portable sales while the eastern push increases sales for portables as less people will double dip for the same experience and just go for the platform that caters to their main needs. Western gaming has heavily focused on high end tech a shift portables do not focus on or can't match as easily while in the east gaming has become more of a collection of subcultures integrated in the social structure with communities for games like Pokemon, Monster Hunter, Yakoi etc... An approach that portables heavily cater to. Shifts like these have an affect on hardware performance hence why PS4 despite having only the Wii U to deal with in Japan for the longest time will still sell much less than the PS2 did over the as a shift over the last decade has taken place and consoles don't perform as well over the. you haven't really shown anything about a monopoly not guaranteeing sales not one thing in all your posts you didn't even understand what was meant by monopoly and you still don't understand the point of explaining price point to you and still fail to understand how it all ties in with not having a monopoly, you're still trying to argue 3DS is a monopoly because it beat out Vita yet the latter still sold 16m units entering into the top 20 platforms sold according to this very site, that's not a monopoly mate far from it it's a usual market leader beating the competition. Also read the post properly I said Vita's own pricing was a key cause of its own downfall. I already do add DS and PSP numbers together when comparing portable gens, DS was an anomaly much like the PS2 and PSP came out with a new approach that forced the DS into being and caused the GBA to be dropped. Both did well for the and people often argue mobile this and that and what that gen says is that the portable market didn't shrink it passed on the blue ocean anomaly to mobile while portables have normalized as a market and will still make a gain as a whole over the GBA era. Again Nintendo have not replaced 3DS because it was a competitive platform, it provided the grounds for them to snatch key franchises that made PSP competitive while still be able to be handled in a competitive manner, you're not even making sense here either as why would they kill off the 3DS and not the Wii U if the latter is the problem platform? NDS was a reaction to the PSP, 3DS' design was a reaction to what they expected Vita to be competitive wise so 3DS was also a reaction to PSP's success, Vita wasn't a success for Sony PSP was because it put up a fight and forced a scenario where the R&D had to respect Sony's portable line unfortunately Vita didn't do as well due to mishandling the platform the same way Nintendo mishandled the Wii U. This mistake by Sony against a competitive platform like 3DS was only ever going to end in one result. You don't expand audience by having two platforms in the same field this is why DS replaced GBA as the former could already do everything the latter could do while adding its own approach, logically it makes more sense to have one platform in the field have a broad approach than split resources among two platforms. Lets put this in perspective imagine if they did have 3 platforms today, the Wii U would have been more of a disaster as portable development and resource management is now comparable to consoles and very likely one of the portables would have gone down like the Wii U as well. |
Your views of the market are not correct.
Different products, even if they share similarities, do attract more consumers.
Of, course, the bigger the difference, the more you can expect the market to increase.
Sometimes it's the name, the look, the price, etc. that puts people off regarding product A, but when that's taken care of, they will buy product B.
And in the case of handhelds, GBA was substantially different from PSP and NDS. And 3DS was substantially different from Vita.
But the west was always more about consoles than handhelds.
There's been no shift in the west, only in Japan - where sales of handhelds rose at the expense of home consoles. And i seriously doubt it has annything to do with technology. Because if it were, we would have seen Vita doing way, way better. Yet, it was outsold by old tech.
Ironically, Vita was the only console to decrease that tech gap that you talk about and it completely failed in Japan.
I said 3DS was a monopoly? You didn't understand what i wrote.
I agreed with you that GBA had a monopoly in the US, Japan and Europe. But, even with a monopoly in Japan, it did worse than 3DS (who didn't had a monopoly).
Which means that having a monopoly doesn't automatically make you the winner. So, your view that 3DS didn't do/won't do better than GBA because GBA had a monopoly simply isn't true as 3DS sales in Japan show that. You could probably used PSP's sales in Europe as proof of that.
The decline of 3DS in the US and Europe has one explanation: mobile boom around the time of DS.
I don't see how you can prove DS was a move to fight the PSP, when both were being developed at the same time and Nintendo is famously known as going their own way.
This is what you said "3DS doesn't have a monpoly because even though it has demolished the Vita the latter putting up a fight in Japan has lead to it snatching a significant chunk of support from the 3DS as a whole not to mention its sales of 16m if they were 3DS units would put the platform's sales above the GBA total"
To this i responded that you can't just add Vita's sales to 3DS without adding the sales of the competition that GBA since 2005. Namely, DS and PSP.
If you only add numbers from Vita to 3DS you'll be making an unfair comparison between 3DS and GBA. Specially when GBA had more serious competition than 3DS ever had.
Exactly what made the 3DS HW so competitive that it took games like MH away from the superior HW (Vita)?
But they did kill Wii U. And they didn't kill 3DS for several reasons (in my prior 2 posts), with the most important being that they didn't have competition.
3DS was a reaction to what Vita would be? 3DS is basically a DS with 3D screen (3D that they have been working since the GC days).
Nintendo always did their thing: be different. It never mattered what the competition did.
And, as i said above, PSP and DS were in development at the same time (they also came out to the market close to one another).
Look, i'm not disagreeing with you on splitting resources and what not.
The thing is even if GBA and DS shared similarities, they were also very different and they also catered to different markets. So, there was room for both.
Ask yourself why companies like LG, for example, have a flagship phone and then come out with spin-offs. If you were right, these companies wouldn't be launching inferior/different products of the same line. They do it because the flagship, for whatever reason can't attract everyone (market and sales potential).
