OTBWY said:
You see, they are direct competitors. The primary offering here is playing games. Tablets are for browsing and multitasking and phone are also for browsing, but primarily for communicating. Not gaming. The Wii did actually compete with the PS3 and the 360. The only difference in this case was that the Wii was marketed towards a more casual audience, HOWEVER, Sony and Xbox proved to competing for that same market later anyway, with things like the PS Move and Kinect. You and that other guy purposefully argue that the somehow the Switch isn't a competitor, in order to dowplay its success. It's really that transparent. |
Nintendo itself multiple times came forward to say they aren't competing with Sony and MS, and you can see it on Wii, WiiU and Switch (Wii where they started this strategy).
You can deny all you want, and can think whatever you want, won't change reality.
And if I really wanted to trounce over Switch I would actually say it is a direct competitor, because PS4 will reach about 130M and Switch around 80M is my projection. So where does saying Switch isn't PS4 competitor have relation to being butthurt with Switch winning against PS4?
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."