DonFerrari said:
Intrinsic said:
He obviously is reaching.
The NS is built from the ground up as a handheld. The NS will be the NS without a dock and nothing mre than a cable t connect it t a tv if you so choose. However if you bought only a dock it will be absolutely nothing but a paperweight without the NS. Yet he calls it a home console. Even his view as to why its a hybrid is centred around nintendo pooling its software divisions as opposed to actually looking at the hardware.
Its strange t me how anyone can not understand the concept f sub markets in the same industry. I dont even get why saying the NS is primarily a handheld and in a different market is a bad thing.
|
Same people that will deny PSP/PSVita was a hybrid because it only needed a cable to hook to TV or that it could play console games on the go with streaming... but Switch is a console because you need a piece of plastic with I/O to connect it to TV.
OTBWY said:
And this is what I mean with people being malicious, they tend to go around bending facts and mental gymnastics to prove a false point. In this case a bad analogy using cars, which is in no way comparable to what entertainment devices are. Here is the actual simple logic, and I will lay it down in simple terms for you.
A gamer has 24 hours a day, some of which he or she spends a certain set of hours on playing games. They have two hands, made to hold one controller to play one game. When a gamer chooses to buy a PS4 game over a Switch game in the store, that is choosing one over the other. Factors can be for example a certain preference in genre. You see. That way they are competing for that persons attention. Do I need to explain consumer markets further?
Secondly, and this is important. If consoles didn't compete, there would be very little reason to release a new console every year or so. The SNES for example was never intended in the first place, since Nintendo thought the NES would go on way longer. However, due to the Megadrive being released (which was made to compete directly with the NES, not the SNES - at first) they had to make a new console in order to compete. This hasn't changed, although, Nintendo has chosen style of play over raw graphical power.
Don't bring in cars please, it's nonsense. Most choices made by consumers buying specific cars are because of price. The differences in prices aren't anywhere near in the console market. If lambos were all as cheap a volkwagens, everyone would buy one.
"It doesn matter what nintendo calls it or says it is "
And there you have it. How can anyone argue with this fake news. lol. Also, the PS3 was used for setting up multiple supercomputers and the Xbox was always a media hub. Where is the lie in this exactly?
On the last part, thank you for explaining what you think a home console should be. You of course have that authority to decide what a home console is over the manufacturers themselves. It's almost like the manufacturers don't move the concept of what a home console forward because some guy has an arbitrary idea of what a home console should be. So silly.
|
You are just not understanding a very simple notion. Please study 5 forces of Porter to at least have an idea of what we are talking about.
It isn't downplaying Switch as competitor because PS4 isn't doing well. It is just that even though a shoe maker in Brazil and one in China may not be direct competitors because they don't sell in each other market. Mc Donalds isn't direct competitor for a Bistrô, because they won't attract same people or even have they trading one for the other, but they are indirect and replaceable.
Wii was a desktop console as PS3 and X360, but also wasn't direct competitor. They were on a blue ocean strategy, alone in their market while PS360 fought for what was the traditional console market. You denying this just paint you as someone without knowledge on the subject as I refuse to adjetive you due to your OPINION.
|
You don't scare me with your 5 forces of Porter boast, Don. I know exactly the market they are competing in, and in fact I think some points can be clarified here.
- New hardware is introduced in reaction to each other. Same with how the WiiU competed with the PS4 and Xbox One, and got replaced by the Switch as a new proposition against those platforms. Same reason why the Pro and One X were released.
- The similarity in games. The Switch doesn't get all new releases, but it does get a fair amount of multiplats and indies also released on other platforms.
- Marketing. There is not a big difference in audience and age groups anymore. The marketing of the Switch has shown teens way more than what they prevously would focus on. This is the exact group the Playstation and Xbox are geared towards.
- They are in the same regions. Unlike your Brazilian shoemaker analogy, they are available in game stores everywhere globally.
- They are pretty much in the same price range. The games are as well.
I can go on but I think the point is largely made.
As for gen 7, please explain to me why Sony made the PS Move, or why MS made the Kinect. Hell, explain to me why Nintendo made the classic controller. And how exactly didn't these consoles compete directly when the same principle of time and attention. It's like, you are saying that they were competing but then again somehow not. Did they or did they not? Why are purposefully downplaying here Don? Is it the same as that time you got mad over someone saying the Switch was killing it?
Essay Pro