The_Liquid_Laser said:
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.
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.
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."