By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel said:
RolStoppable said:

You neither know what a straw man is nor when something is driven by bias. If you are so convinced that the arguments for failure of Switch had logic to them, then you should explain why that was the case instead of deflecting over and over again.

Regarding the first two Xbox 360 SKUs, here's an article to read:

The idea that the cheaper SKU was selling better is laughable because it was so gimped. I have to correct myself on one thing, that is that the original entry model of the 360 was called Core, not Arcade like I mistakingly said. The Arcade SKU replaced Core in October 2007 while retaining the $279 price.

Price cuts were kept track of on this website:

Both Sony and Microsoft made a lot of SKU changes in 2007, here's what each company had on offer by November 2007, one year after the PS3's launch:

Xbox 360 - $279 Arcade, $349 20GB, $449 120GB.
PS3 - $399 40GB, $499 80GB.

So the $200 difference that you said held true for three years isn't anywhere close to true. The difference between the most bought models at that point (20GB 360 and 40GB PS3) was only $50 one year after the PS3's launch. The $200 difference between the PS3 and 360 held only true for eight months; naturally, I am not using the $499 20GB SKU of the PS3 for comparison because the $599 60GB SKU was the better selling one during the first eight months.

If you weren't so blinded by bias, you would have seen in my previous posts when I actually explained why those predictions were grounded in logic.  I won't repeat it, again, as that would just be a waste of my time.

Still waiting for your research and data on what each model of the 360 sold.

Funny you claim that I don't know what a strawman is, and then go on to try and use one in your argument (the bolded.)  I already corrected myself a few posts ago, yet you tried to reduce my argument back to what I originally stated.  The things that make you go hmmm.

That wasn't a straw man, I honestly forgot what was said on the day before. Here, I went back to find your revised argument:

thismeintiel said:

For the price cut, we're talking about entry prices here, so I have no idea where you got the $600 to $400 drop.  I was wrong about one thing, though.  There was a period when the PS3 was only $120 more than the 360.  The 360 launched at $299.  The PS3 launched at $499, a $200 difference.  The first real price cut the PS3 saw was to $399, a year later, not 7 months.  Xbox had already dropped the price early in 2007 to $279, so a $120 difference, not $50.  The following year, 2008, we saw no PS3 price cut, but Xbox introduced the Arcade for $199 in Sept.  That's back to a $200 difference.The next price cut for the PS3 was 11 months later, $299 with the introduction of the Slim, in Aug of 2019.  That finally dropped the price difference to just $100 after nearly 3 years on the market.  Again, first time a console survived such a huge price difference, especially one that started at $200, then shrank to $120, only to grow back to $200 for another year.  The prices pretty much correspond to € 1:1, though the month of the price cut may change by a month or so.

The only difference that your revised argument makes is the degree by which you are wrong. You are literally the only person on this site who refuses to believe that the gimped Xbox 360 was not the best-selling 360 SKU, for everyone else it's common sense that most people wanted an HDD and purchased the SKU that had one.

Maybe we should change the approach here. Try to explain why it's reasonable that most people bought a 360 without an HDD, hopefully such an attempt makes you realize how illogical that position of yours is.

thismeintiel said:

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.

The above is only justification I could find in regards to your defense of illogical Switch lifetime sales predictions. Looking at the flow of the conversation, that's why I asked you to bring more to the table because the above was already addressed in my thread from January 2017. Points 3, 8, 9 and 10 cover all different angles of your justification for low predictions. Skip beyond the italicized text for a brief summary.

3. "Switch is screwed because people got burned by the Wii U. People don't trust Nintendo anymore."

A look at sales data should make it obvious that the majority of Nintendo fans skipped the Wii U altogether, so the only people who got burned by game delays and droughts are the ones who bought a Wii U. Everybody else didn't really give a damn about the Wii U to begin with and the only hard feelings that would have existed date back to over five years ago when Nintendo announced that they would make a piece of trash. Sane people do not hold grudges over video games forever.

Also worth of note, Nintendo is clearly rebranding itself. A new generation means that a company can get rid of baggage. GC being a failure didn't harm the Wii.

8. "3DS and Wii U hardware had no problems, or at least not as many as Switch has."

I don't think anybody would say this, but a lot of you must be thinking it regardless. If you expect further decline for Nintendo this generation, you basically must believe that the 3DS and Wii U were better executed than Switch.

What is wrong with you?

9. "Nintendo's addressable market is limited to Wii U and 3DS owners."

Oh man, this is the point where you really have to open your eyes and not be so narrow-minded. You let your personal feelings dictate your sales predictions. "Switch is expensive, doesn't have Western multiplatform games etc." You project your idea of what console gaming has to be on everyone else. You believe that people who do not own and want an eighth generation system (Wii U, 3DS, PS4, PSV, XB1) are not interested in consoles, period. You don't want to consider the possibility that all of the eighth generation systems might suck to a lot of people. I mean, look at the choices of the eighth gen: Nintendo does what they want with no respect for previous sales data, Sony and Microsoft offer dumbed down PC gaming, plus a handheld that doesn't get any games worth of note.

Now Switch comes and offers completely different values. A passionate gamer who couldn't care less about the crappy eighth gen could look at Nintendo's new console and say: "Zelda is a massive open world game again, that's right up my alley because that's the Zelda I loved. I can take this thing to my office, effortlessly set it up during breaks and rock games like Mario Kart, Bomberman and Street Fighter 2 with my colleagues. And it's only $300? Are you kidding me?"

The point is, the value evaluation for Switch in the real world will be very different to what is done on gaming forums where local multiplayer and leaving your house are frowned upon. In the real world the gaming of the NES and SNES days is highly valued. On gaming forums SNES games are considered worse than indie games, because "indie games are newer". Switch is set up to resonate strongly with the passionate gamer of the old days who nowadays has no console made for them. If you weren't so close-minded, you'd realize that Nintendo doesn't even need non-gamers to make Switch a big success. There is a large market that is not properly catered to, and that's the former gamer.

10. "Switch's price is too high."

This is the best point that is made for why the Switch will have problems. But is it really that big of a concern? What are the alternatives to Switch? There is none, so Nintendo can be bullish with the price. Eventually it will come down and have different bundles.

In short: The GC failure wasn't an obstacle for the success of the Wii, so Nintendo's performance in the eighth generation isn't relevant. Switch has a very different value proposition than the 3DS and Wii U, so its price will be looked at in a different way, rendering straight comparisons null and void.

When you explained why Switch didn't fail, you noted how the price wasn't an issue because of Switch's value proposition of being both a home console and handheld. You also mentioned good support, another point that was covered by me in January 2017:

6. "Nintendo didn't show many of their own games. Looks like there will be Wii U-like droughts again."

You are too used to other console reveals where wild promises and announcements are made. All Nintendo games that were announced are scheduled for 2017. You are also oblivious to the fact that Switch will get all of Nintendo's games as Switch will be the only Nintendo console this generation. Droughts like on the Wii U are simply not going to happen.

I explained in detail why the supposed justifications for Switch's failure are illogical and irrational. None of it was guesswork because in hindsight things played out the way I said they would. And in hindsight everyone should be able to admit that the reasons for Switch's failure weren't well-reasoned at all.

Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments