According to Mat Piscatella "Next Gen consoles sales will not have a major effect on Switch sales"

[The_Liquid_Laser]

zorg1000 said:

The_Liquid_Laser said:

The problem with this argument is that all 3 are actually competing for all the demographics.  When Nintendo has exclusives like Bayonnetta or Xenoblade Chronicles, they are competing for the 13-35 year old male.  Not to mention that this category really likes games like BotW or Smash Bros as well.  And when Sony or Microsoft produces games like Little Big Planet, Knack or anything with the Minecraft label, then they are competing outside of the 13-35 male demographic.  On top of this all 3 have plenty of third party games that appeal to a variety of demographics.  

All 3 companies are trying to get all of the current gaming market onto their platform.  They might each have a different focus, but they are similar enough to still be directly competing.  You might as well say Netflix, Hulu, Apple+ and Disney+ are not competing streaming platforms.  They each have a different focus, but they still directly compete with one another.  They are offering a similar type of product and aiming it at the same broad group of consumers.  These companies are directly competing.  The big 3 gaming companies are doing the same thing.

Note the words "overlap", "primarily" and "includes" in my post.

Yes, PS4 & XBO also have games aimed at other demographics but they make up a very small percentage of releases and sales on those consoles.

And yes, Nintendo does also aim towards the demographic that PS/XB do but it's not their main focus, their main focus is to aim for all demographics, not any specific one.

The words "overlap", "primarily" and "includes" all lead to Nintendo being direct competitors to Sony and Microsoft.

The issue that many people seem to be having is they think "direct competitor" is the same as "carbon copy".  In Generation 5, Nintendo, Sony and Sega were all direct competitors but none of them tried to be carbon copies with one another.  The N64 and PS1 had fairly different game libraries in a lot of ways, but they were directly competing with one another, because they were both targeting the same types of customers with a dedicated home system.  Then Microsoft comes along as the carbon copy of Sony and also Sega drops out of the hardware business.  All of the sudden Nintendo looks really different, because Microsoft and Sony are so similar.  The reality is that Nintendo and Sony didn't change.  They are still directly competing.  But Microsoft being a carbon copy of Sony now makes Nintendo look more different.

It is very much like this.  McDonalds, Taco Bell and KFC all directly compete in the same town, because they are all trying to sell fast, cheap, lower quality food.  If KFC goes away and Burger King comes along, then that doesn't change that McDonald's and Taco Bell are still directly competing.  Sure McDonald's and Burger King look really similar, but Taco Bell is still selling to people who want fast, cheap, lower quality food.  Olive Garden is actually an indirect competitor.  It's still a restaurant, but it's slow, more expensive and higher quality food.  The type of food (burgers or tacos) is actually not as important as price, convenience and quality.

Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all make dedicated home systems.  They are all of similar price, convenience and quality.  They compete directly.  Meanwhile smartphones and PC's are indirect competitors.  Smartphone gaming is cheaper, more convenient and is a lower quality experience compared to consoles.  PC's on the other hand tend to be less convenient than a console, but can give a higher quality performance.  PC's can even have really similar games to consoles, but they've always been in different markets.  What matters more is price, convenience and quality.

Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 06 January 2020