NintendoPie said:
The fundamentals of the reasoning are flawed. The Switch has had a better first year as a games console than multiple years of the XBO, and anyone with a sense of clarity can tell that, going forward, the Switch will continue to have better games output than the XBO. This has been basically proven and discussed multiple times, it shouldn't really be an odd thing to point out. I saw your other post and I can only hope that you questioned my post purely because you thought it odd that people buy a worse console just on precedence, I forgive you for that assumption. |
Nope.
You may say that Nintendo 1st party is better than MS (even if some will disagree), but considering everything that have already been released to X1 then it's a lot bigger and superior to Switch. And for some people it being the best option and buying doesn't seem like a ridiculous proposition.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
