Miyamotoo said:
|
You read that way because you, as before, misread what i wrote. Now, it's probably due to us changing the conversation a bit.
Of course that sequels and more games help sell a system, but if what your trying to say was true, then sales of a console would keep on rising insteading of falling in later years.
Also, if price cuts were enough to increase sales, then, again, sales wouldn't fall in later years, despite having a more mass market price and better libraries. But they do.
What new games, sequels, price cuts, do, from a certain point, is, hold the fall in sales more than turning things around.
Every product has it's sweatspot [price].
You don't necessarily need to lower it to get more sales. What you'll probably get is a small boost and then sales keep falling and you just lost money, with the price cut, on future sales.
"point that every quarter sells more than 1m proves that, so that actualy proves my point that not everyone that wanted Zelda already bought Switch"
That would be a good counter argument if i had said that literally everyone interested in the game had already bought a console or the potential for Switch Zelda owners was shrinking.
I never said any of that.
That's why i asked you how many people do you think - of those that want Zelda BOTW - will be left between now and when the sequel arrives: "How many users do you think will remain to get the console between now and when a sequel arrives?" (my question to you in the previous post).
I asked you this because you were implying two things:
1 - Switch's price is an obstacle.
2 - Zelda sequel would do a lot for the HW sales.
I pointed out the numbers for Zelda and you ignored. Those numbers clearly show that price isn't an issue.
I also said that a normal game of a given franchise will attract that specific userbase - which is exactly what it's doing. And because of that, sequels, even if they sell more don't necessarily bring that many people because a good part of the audience is already there.
Remember that Zelda is already close to 10 million, if it hasn't surpassed that milestone already!
You can call it a port - as i do - but you can't say, like you can say for GoW, that the game was already out for two years and then sold that much.
That's the difference!
When Switch is selling the way it's selling (fastest selling console in the US, btw), exactly who is waiting for the price to drop so Switch fits their vision of what they want to pay for handheld gaming?
Those people are clearly the minority.
If people thought 300$ was too much for making the Switch the secondary console, then Switch would have sold way, way less; it's games would have sold way, way less.
Miyamoto, you can claim all you want that 300$ or 329€ is an obstacle, but the market is proving you wrong. Not me. The market.
"Actually that's Nintendo ultimate goal with Switch and I dont any reason why it couldn't be selling like device per person"
It sounds great in theory, but when you look at it, it's really not that feasible. Not to mentio it actually goes against your idea that Switch's price is an obstacle at 300!
Imagine that the console is at 199$. Buy 2 and you pay 400$ (price isn't an obstacle now?). Then you have to get your kids the same games (what you said about account sharing is only valid for digital purchases, not physical).
Do you really believe that parents will really be willing (in meaningful numbers) to spend that much? If you believe that 300$ is a big obstacle, then, you can't say that paying 400$ + double the game prices, is a viable option or even a likely scenario.
Of course that PS5 and XB2 will be "real" competition… they are competing for the same market, afterall.
Price might be a factor if those consoles aren't that attractive. Because if they are, then, taking into consideration the adoption rate for consoles this gen, price won't matter all that much.
PS4 made a killing at 400$... 400$.
XB1 didn't do better because of it's mistakes.
I already said that Sony had deals for the PS4 that helped it get a few extra million below 300$. No arguing there.
But they did wonders at 400$ and even 300$. Why? Because people saw the value and price stopped being an obstacle.
You bring their streamlining game's strategy and then mix it with second party and even 3rd party games…
If we are talking about Nintendo's own studios, then we are talking about just that. And in regards to that, i still stay by what i said: so far, there's no fruits of that strategy.
Not that there won't be, it's just that there aren't. Period. And after 4 years, we should have seen more.
In terms of marketing push we are indeed seeing that, as Nintendo keeps being one of the company's that spends more on advertising.
"my point is that when Switch actually has price point thats closer to handheld price point and start selling like device per person, Switch will have huge boost in sales, espacily in Japan"
Things aren't that linear as you make them to be; it's not how economics works.
Just because you lower the price, it doesn't necessarily mean that sales will skyrocket or reach a higher plateau. For that to happen, Switch shouldn't have crossed 6 million in Japan, already, for example.
That is a signal that the market isn't waiting for a price drop to buy the system. Why? Because they already see enough value in it (hybrid nature, for example) to buy it at a higher price.
What you are doing, is treating Switch as if it wasn't a hit or as if it was an expensive handheld. It's no-no for both scenarios. Therefore, you have to adapt your thnking to Switch's unique proposition and how the market is perceiving it and adopting it.
Again, the "more than one per household" is a financial burden, as i tried to show you above.
"But actualy it proves that, point that all 3 have great year (I mean PS4 still sales at least 2-3x than XB1 in any case) proves that at least PS4 and Switch are not real competition. But huge majority of that 80m user base will not be willing to buy new PS5 at launch for $400-500"
Two things:
First: you are looking at sales and are completely overlooking how these sales came to be. It really doesn't matter if people are buying it as a secondary console and not choosing Switch over PS4/Xb1, if there were already enough users who owned a PS4/XB1 for years. Context is irrelevant to you.
Second: have you forgotten how many consoles Sony sold at 400$; how much PS4 and XB1 sold at launch at 400/500$?
"Switch was at around 20m and PS4 at around 80m, that means that Switch still huge room for grow along PS4/XB1 ownwers."
Exactly. But the room to growth isn't because people are choosing Switch over the others, As in, creating it's own market. It's because it's getting the majority of it's sales from an existing market.
You didn't show that there is sustainability. Sustainability is something for the medium to long term. Short term wins don't necessarily have that consequence.
You could try and defend it by saying that Nintendo has a lot more IPs to be released after 2019, but you can't say that;
You could try and defend it by saying that Nintendo is gonna get the best of the best 3rd party support, but you can't prove that;
You could try and defend it by saying that Nintendo is gonna sell more than one device per household, but you can't demonstrate that while at the same time saying that 300$ is a meaningful obstacle (you would be contradicting yourself);
You can't also really "prove" that focusing on Switch will actuall provide those awesome results when you don't know what what games they are making. For all we know, they can come up with a bunch of franchises and only one becomes the next Nintendo system seller.
Your clear facts have been nothing more than hypothesis or theories that you haven't been able to materialise in actual facts. Not to mention how you keep ignoring market trends and reasonable thinking.
In other words, you have in no way proven that after 2019, Nintendo can continue sustaining Switch's success. You have only provided hypohotesis.
See you in a future thread!
