Console Wars are mostly dead...

[thismeintiel]

RolStoppable said:

thismeintiel said:

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. 

Nintendo made a hybrid because the technology was far enough advanced to make it possible; that's the hardware side. On the software side it was clear that development times for two distinct platforms were becoming too high as seen by the Wii U and 3DS which both went through extended droughts. So Switch isn't a consequence of a shrinking handheld market, but a consequence of game development times getting longer. If a hybrid hadn't been possible, then Nintendo would have made a home console and a handheld that share all their games between them. And yes, the Vita situation was completely different because all the system had were games. That's not the case for a home console. If you watch E3 2013 again, you'll see that the Vita got a shorter segment at Sony's press conference than the representative of Sony Music who talked about music on the upcoming PS4.

The 360 Arcade was most certainly gimped. It didn't have any HDD, so it ran on memory cards to store save data. That's why the $399 Xbox 360 sold so much better than the entry price model. That's why in the real world consumers compared the more expensive 360 to the PS3 and made their decision based on that, not whatever the crappy 360 SKU costed. That's why the most logical price comparison is to take the best-selling SKU from both manufacturers because those are the ones that the biggest amount of potential customers are looking at.

If you take the route of "we have no idea if that will be the case", you'll have to forego to challenge my argument because you have no idea how things are likely to play out.

The lack of logic in Switch sales predictions was picked apart in January 2017:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=224719

Console wars are usually more fun to watch for the people who are either impartial or on the winning side. Neither will apply to you, unfortunately.

Revisionist history is an interesting study, but I choose to live in reality. The market was shrinking, simple as that. It's much easier to have a success when all of your effort goes into it, instead of being divided. Sony and Nintendo both knew this and followed down this path.

And the Core/Arcade could use a HDD, it just didn't come with one. You could also use an external HDD on it. I would also love to see your extensive research and data on which model sold what and what consumers were thinking when they bought the 360 over the PS3.

Lol, yes, you used your bias and what you hoped to be true to pick at other predictions, like many do. You're very fortunate the Switch was a hit. Of course, that doesn't change that there were logical reasons it could have failed. For you to not be able to admit that just shows blind bias.

You, of all people, have no credibility to call others out on their bias, as your prediction statements show. As for not being first, don't get too cocky. It may come back to bite you in the ass.

Last edited by thismeintiel - on 03 November 2019