Miyamotoo said:
tbone51 said:
Each paragraph.
1) your basically doing the opposite. Your saying its a hybrid. So why would 2 switches have to replace 1wiiu and 1 3ds if switch is a "HYBRID". Wouldn't it be wiser to by "Kerotan" logic to subtract 13.5mil wiiu from 70mil+ 3ds? If your logic is true then it is the "Software" that switch needs to beat wiiu/3ds combine (franchises that have both counterparts). See that is realistic than your reasoning
2) If your comparing them then yes but nintendo never stated that they have to beat both combined. No offense but Switch is doing better for the company than the 3ds/wiiu combine. It doesnt matter even of it sells less. Because the most important thing for a company is "Profits". Would you rather sell 100mil HW and make nothing or sell 50mil HW and make $1,000,000,000? See the difference?
3) No comment
4) I dont take kindly to horrible logic. Sure its about nintendo but i wont argue if its true. If i did i argue with every1 saying bad things about nintendo. Not just you/Lawlight/DrVita/Quick (and a few others)
|
Agree.
Its intresting how he continue to push his narative buy saying that Switch need to sell Wii U + 3DS numbers beacuse Switch is a hybrid, ignoring fact that Switch despite its hybrid its still one console (one platform, with one linuep of games, with one price point, with one market...), and despite its one console that Nintendo can easily have much better profit than they had with Wii U and 3DS and we actually seeing that.
|
Yeah 1 console that replaced 2. If ps4 was also portable and a successor to the vita as well we would obviously be comparing it to vita + ps3. The only reason you guys don't accept this comparison is because it doesn't favor the switch.
