By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nu-13 on 06 January 2020
Edit Thread
Landguy said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

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.

I think you have one of the better descriptions of your point that I have seen in many years of reading this argument.  BUT, it doesn't change the fact that Nintendo isn't selling the same thing.  The Switch is seldom marketed as a home console. Nintendo is selling a portable gaming system that happens to hook to the tv too.  To fit it to your analogy, it would mean that Taco Bell would be the only restaurant with a drive thru.  The Switch is clearly getting some of the same user base as the PS4 and the XB1.  But, the number of people buying the Switch as their only HOME console has to be limited.  Just look at the top selling games for the Switch. They are not games that require a TV, if anything they are literally games that work either better or at their best on a handheld. Look at the top selling accessories for the Switch, mostly mobile accessory add ons.  The Switch is really just replacing the DS with modern power levels and better display in a mobile device.  The cost to make it run on a tv is minuscule.  I mentioned it earlier in the thread, having a device connect to the tv doesn't make it a console.

You can say that as many times as you want and it will still never be true. This isn't an opinion thing. The switch is both a portable and a home console.