RolStoppable said:
Yes, Blu-ray was the reason why Sony didn't quit the PS3. If Sony was in the console market for the games, they wouldn't have pulled the plug on the Vita, let alone so fast. The PS3 had non-gaming purposes, but the Vita had none of that because smart devices had cornered all the non-gaming already. Price comparisons between consoles are done between the SKUs that are selling the best. It wasn't the gimped 360 SKU that people chose over the PS3. It seems you are under the belief that I am arguing that Scarlett will sell more than the PS5, but what I am actually arguing is that Scarlett is set up to do better than the Xbox One. Microsoft can still count on third party support, plus the arrow is pointing upwards for their first party efforts. It's baffling that you continue to defend plain awful Switch lifetime sales predictions that had heavily flawed reasoning. Of course, the most likely explanation for your stance on this is that you were one of those predictors yourself. Your last paragraph is a sign of things to come in the console wars and it bodes well for a lot of entertainment. |
The Vita situation is completely different. HHs were never Sony's bread and butter. They were successful with their first attempt. Unfortunately, the HH market shrank considerably after that gen. Sony knew it, and saw no way to recover, so dropped focus on it to focus on their actual bread and butter, home consoles. Even Nintendo knows the HH market shrank. Why do you think they went with a hybrid? They had a HH that was the 2nd best selling console of all time, with over 150M in sales and good competition from a 80M+ selling PSP, and within one generation they weren't even going to hit 80M with absolutely no competition from Sony's Vita. So, again, you are wrong. Please, do try again, though.
No, that's the price comparison YOU want to do because you think it helps your argument. Actual price comparisons are done between either entry price points or average prices, not the most expensive model for one vs the cheapest model for another, just because it suits you. And the base models were not gimped. They did everything the more expensive models did, only lacked a larger HDD. And if that's how you wish to do the comparison, then you should do the most expensive for both. Of course, all 3 real methods, entry point, average price, and most expensive, will just back my point up.
I didn't say you were saying it would do better. You were arguing that it will cut into PS5's market share, though. Sounded like in the hope that the PS5 wouldn't pass the Switch. I'm saying we have no idea if that it will be the case. MS hasn't done a very good job this gen to convince people to continue to stick with them, or stay for next gen. And with MS really wanting to switch to streaming, it would lower my confidence in them really caring about the HW side of things. And like I said, their new 1st party has yet to prove itself under MS's guidance. Their track record in that aspect isn't the greatest. Nor is the output of their exclusives in the back half of the gen.
I did make one of those predictions. I've never hid that fact. But, to say it had no basis in logic after a failed Wii U and a 3DS that failed at the $249 price point is just showing your blind bias. That has more grounding in logic than the predictions from some Nintendo fans that claimed PS4/XBO were doomed and the console market was dying, all because the successor to the almighty Wii had failed. Now, I will say that if people had those predictions after a year of the Switch being on the market, then yes, they were blinded by their own bias. But, before launch, and maybe even slightly after it, there was perfectly sound logic in that assumption.
In other words, you have no argument, so resort to insults. You are right, these upcoming console wars are going to be fun for me to watch. 
