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

LOL, how can he has two separate statement, there is no half right and half wrong. When you are  agree with him  it means all of his statement are correct, because it's not based on opinion, it's based on research and study. Your statement is cherry picking ,  and altering the research cause based on scientific method that Mat Piscatella did. You agree with his result but not agree with the cause. And also he never mentioned PS5 sales or xbox sales. He discussing Switch sales. 

Just because a statement is true that doesn't mean the converse of a statement is true.  That is all I meant.  

I must have really touched a nerve with that statement for you to be triggered so badly. 

zorg1000 said:

That's not what happened.

With the exception of the launch window, due to shortages, 360 was outpacing its predecessor the entire time.

Xbox vs 360

Launch-1.5m vs 1.2m

Year 1-6.5m vs 6.8m

Year 2-5.7m vs 7.9m

Year 3-6.2m vs 10.9m

Year 4-4.1m vs 10.2m

Basically they tied for the first year (when Wii wasnt out yet) then 360 started outpacing it.

As for PS3, Wii had little to do with its sluggish sales, it was the ridiculously high price, Blu-Ray not being as big of deal as DVD and the loss of a ton of exclusives.

Wii was like Switch, great sales that were independent of the other consoles and complemented rather than competed with them.

Are you saying sales were not sluggish for PS3 and XBox360 for the first few years?  Both consoles peaked in 2011 according to VGChartz numbers.  How many other 2nd and 3rd place consoles peak 5-6 years after launch?   

At the same time the Wii actually did peak early.  Wii is up when the others are down.  Then Wii is down and the others are up.  That looks a whole lot like competition.

Shadow1980 said:
This is a "Captain Obvious" prediction on Mat's part. The release of a console from one brand has never had any measurable impact on the sales of a console from another brand. It just doesn't happen. Ever. There's no reason to assume it will start happening now, especially in this case. Nintendo is offering an experience that's much different than what Sony & MS offer. PlayStation & Xbox are like twins, while Nintendo kind of does their own unique thing. Nintendo is not really competing directly with PS & Xbox.

Normally you seem to know what you are talking about, but these statements I bolded make it seem like you don't believe in competition.  Don't you think any of the consoles are competing with one another?  Why did the SNES sell less than the NES.  Could it be that they bought a Genesis/Megadrive instead?  Why did the PS3 sell less than the PS2?  Is it just a coincidence that the XBox brand sold better in Generation 7 while the Playstation brand sold worse?

I mean, think about what you are actually saying.  These consoles are actually competing.  If one company makes a misstep, that doesn't mean most people just stop playing video games.  They buy a competing console instead.

Besides you mixing cause and effect.

And on your comment to Shadow. He isn't denying competition exists, he is saying that a console in gen X isn't affected by the release of the console from another maker on gen Y. He isn't saying that consoles from company X and Y don't affect the sales of one another when they are of the same gen.

Basically Mega Drive didn't considerably affect the sales of NES, PS1 didn't considerably affect sales of SNES, GC and Xbox didn't affect sales of PS1, X360 and Wii didn't affect sales of PS2, WiiU and X1 didn't affect the sales of PS3/X360 and Switch didn't affect the sales of PS4/X1.

Just go look at the sales curve of them. Sure most of these cases the leader was already in the tale end of their life anyway, but their sales is already stablished enough that the new gen of a competitor don't affect them, they really lose wind when the sucessor of the same maker comes out (even more because that company also change focus to the new HW).



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."