Wyrdness said:
No I said the GBA sold what it did quicker in a time of no other competition as opposed to following gens where the portables out had competition and mobile to deal with yet inspite of mobile the portable market as a whole has increased the number of units sold, you've yet to counter this in anyway tbh your only response was to cherry pick regions in a null and void argument. The Xbox part of your argument is showing hypocrisy as you claim GBA had room to grow but not the original Xbox which many at the time felt was cut too short in order for MS to gain a head start in gen 7, sorry but I have to dismiss this view. What are you on about GB beat out SNES/MD combined and individually, waht are you even talking about here it's like you're not even reading the entire posts and only certain lines at this point. Again your whole NES part highlights moving goal posts trying to compare 3 gens of consoles to one gen, this part of your argument makes little sense other than you trying to save a heavily debunked argument as first you claimed consoles were always on top then when shown how the GB demolished the consoles in its gen you then try to move GB to the PS1 gen only to realize that GB still outsold all the platforms there so now it's GEN 1/2/3 total against the GB's total (one platform) okay mate we see what you're attempting here, what's funny is that the argument highlights what I said in portables always having equal footing when you need to attempt such an argument. The flaw in what you've attempted here is that many of the sales of later platforms ignores the fact that many consumers already had the GB when later platforms arrive so when the platform is at 118 which individually is more than all platforms that came previously it won't sell much more because the consumers buying the new platforms will already have bought it. You seem to not be reading posts properly as I didn't say their portables weren't more powerful than their previous I said the 3DS was made with a competitive increase which is different from just increasing power and functions in half decent jumps. 3DS had to be more powerful not only than the DS but the PSP as that's what the competition forced. DS used old tech yes but it also used something that many devices at the time didn't utilize, a touch screen interface, they fought with a ok jump and innovation and it was an approach that even Apple themselves took note of as it triggered their own use of touch screen interfaces in their own products. Sorry but their actions highlight that they had quite a lot of concern about the competition to the point that they dropped a successful platform to compete. |
My claim was always that 3DS wasn't capable of outperforming the GBA. And it was not because it had competition or that it didn't have a monopoly, as despite those two circumnstances it still managed to outsell GBA in Japan.
I then used the PSP example (a non monopolistic market and still having to face the DS) as another console that could outsell the GBA.
So, neither the competition argument, nor the monopoly argument, can be used as an excuse for 3DS' results.
You then tried to say that 3DS+Vita > than GBA. Which is obvious, as instead of 1 console to attract gamers, you had 2 - who could naturally attract more consumers.
You also tried to act as if if Vita didn't exist, then 3DS would have sold 16m more. Which was a wrong, as not everyone has the same tastes and naturally, even if 3DS would take some of those sales, it would only take part of them, not the whole thing (assuming that no 3DS owner already had a Vita).
It's true that people said that XB's life was cut short, but that was in regards to the year that it supposedly had left and not sales it had left.
XB sold 20+m before it was replaced. GBA had sold 65m before it was replaced. There's really no comparison here.
Not to mention that those extra 16m more it gained after 2005, the bulk of it were gained in the 2 following years.
Your consoles vs handhelds paragraph just confused me...
Let's recap: your argument was that a shift occurred in the PS2/GBA era - with consoles, from that point onward, starting to be the most bought product.
So, i went and checked how consoles sold versus handhelds.
What i got was that, even just by looking at the time where GB entered the market, you got an average 11+m handhelds sold per year, versus 28+m consoles sold per year.
Now, you can say that GB sold more than this or that console. Ok, that could have happened. But you can't say that handhelds beat home consoles as average shows that even if they beat home consoles in a year or two, the majority of years are on home consoles side. Which really nullifies your shift argument and 3 gens vs 1 gen argument.
"the platform is at 118 which individually "
So, who's changing goal posts now?
Also, it's irrelevant that while GB had 12 years to achieve those sales, most consoles only had 5 years on the market?
You can say as many times as you that competition forced Nintendo to improve their handhelds over the prior gen when that's exactly what they have been doing since ever.
You can also ignore how DS was in development at the same time as the PSP and that despite the competition, neither the DS or 3DS, were designed to be compete against the PSP and Vita. 'cause if they were DS would have been a GBA 2.0 and 3DS would have been GBA 3.0 or even a PSP 2.0.
