Wyrdness said:
|
You were the one who claimed that GBA sold better than 3DS because it had a monopoly; i showed you that despite having a monopoly in 3 regions, it still got outsold in 2.
That alone should prove you that monopoly isn't an excuse to say that 3DS sold worse [because it didn't have a monopoly - as if there was some law that prohibited consoles to perform equally or better in a non-monopolistic position].
I really don't see how you can still try and look at this as if it's irrelevant.
Also, how can you call a comparison between Xbox and GBA, a fair comparison, when they performed so differently from one another and one clearly had a lot of room to grow sales even further?
So, GB beat Snes and MD individually... who's cherry picking now...
On one subject you look at the whole, on another you look at the parts.
I said GB was out for 10 years before being replaced by the GBA, but i was wrong, it was out for, give or take, 12 years (1989-2001).
During it's lifetime (not just 1989-2001), it sold 118m consoles (GB, GB Light, GB pocket and finally, GB color). On the other hand, Nes, who came out in 1983 in Japan (1985 in the US - New York, as the first market), started a 18 year run for consoles until 2001 (XB and GC came out that year).
But your argument was that there was a shift, and that before that shift in the PS2/GBA generation, portables were the top choice (over consoles).
Thing is, if you add up all console sales since NES came out, to 2001, you get about 550m consoles sold worldwide. If you add up all handhelds (GB, GG and Wonderswan) you get 139m handhelds sold worldwide.
It's 550m vs 139m.
If what you said was true, and handhelds were the top choice, then, how could the difference be so great?
Even if you take out the 6 years that GB was not it in the market, the difference is still 344m vs 139m. That's an average of 28,6m per year, versus 11,5m per year.
You can check the numbers, if you don't trust me.
Of course i have to add sales of several generations. How fair would the comparison be, if i compared a consoles' sales with consoles that weren't for sale anymore?
And wasn't your point that handhelds outsold home consoles before the PS2/GBA generation?
Well, seeing as NES came out in 1983 and GB, in 1989, i think whatever "bad press" hindered NES sales in the US (released in 1985), went away when GB got released 4 years after.
"3DS was more powerful than PSP because they had competition"
You're bending history to fit your argument.
Every Nintendo console was more powerful than it's predecessor.
Also, if Nintendo feared the 80m PSP's sold, they would have followed that route instead of making a DS+3D screen. In your own standards, that's not being competitive as they still went with old tech against new tech (same for DS vs PSP).
3D tech was just a question of time, not a question of Nintendo having competitors or not.
"You don't say PSP sold a tonne you know why?"
I actually did say that. I even used the same expression you used.
Nintendo fearing the competition because they used old tech to compete? Wasn't that Nintendo's m.o. since like, the N64?
Nintendo always competed with old tech and that still hasn't changed.
Whatever people thought is really not relevant. Nintendo had/has a way of doing things that it's different and clearly doesn't rely on following the competition.
If GBA hadn't sell 67m before DS, your views might have had more strength.
Again, i'm not saying Nintendo didn't fear the competition. All i'm saying is that none of Nintendo's actions say that, whatever they did, they did it to fight Sony or to be "competetive" like Sony.
