The_Liquid_Laser said:
JWeinCom said:
If we really are predicting the same thing, then my explanation is superior. That is the meaning of Occam's Razor, regardless of how it is stated. If two explanations predict the exact same thing, then the simpler one is the better one. If you can take a bunch of charts and data and sum it up in a single sentence, then the sentence is better than the charts and data. Simplicity is better than complexity if the two explanations actually are equivalent.
You have not predicted anything yet, just explained (sort of) things that already happened. Suppose we are looking at a TV and notice that it turns on when I press the power button and is plugged in. I give a detailed explanation of how the electrical engineering works, and you say "It's magic." Based on this, we would both predict the TV will turn on when the power button is pushed. Your explanation is a single sentence and is much simpler. But, it doesn't actually explain anything.
Likewise, generations doesn't actually explain anything. All it does is show that systems released around the same time will likely be more competitive which is a big DUH. I'm sure anyone could predict that without knowing anything about the gaming industry. If two companies are both actively trying to convince me to buy products that serve a similar function, they will be in competition. The actual relevant question is how the two products are going to impact each other. Saying they're in the same generation doesn't help answer that.
The Wii U was released more than 4 years after the Wii, and it didn't compete with the PS4 or XBox One in any real sense. Looking at generations, there is no reason for this. Looking at the tech specs, marketing, and library we can easily see why.
The Vita and 3DS were both released more than 4 years after their predecessors. If we only looked at generations, we'd expect them to compete in relatively the same way their predecessors did. Obviously, that didn't happen. Looking at other factors, such as price point, how heavily they were marketed, and how many games were available, it's easy to explain why the 3DS sold better.
Things like tech specs, pricing, marketing, and libraries clearly seem to matter, and you can't just cut them away with Occam's Razor, because that's not how it works. Those factors actually help us predict how the two products will interact with each other, which can actually help make predictions. Saying they're in the same generation just tells us they will compete in some capacity. And, again, the fact that they'll compete to some degree should be obvious just based on the fact that all three companies are actively trying to convince you to buy their product over the other.
To the point, if you're simply labeling the Switch as a gen 9 console, it should compete with the PS5 in the same way the XBox Series X will. Assuming Nintendo does not release a radical hardware revision, this will almost surely not be the case.
|
I'm thinking that what our disagreement comes down to is which systems actually compete. I very much think the Wii U competed with PS4 and XB1. That is a big reason why it sold so poorly. Also, the 3DS and Vita definitely competed. That is why the Vita did so poorly.
What generations don't do is determine who will win, which is something you've been pointing out in your post. Maybe that is why you don't think they are meaningful. They don't tell which system will win, but they do tell which systems are competing.
Of course, we don't seem to be able to agree on which systems are competing. We are probably talking past each other, because we don't even agree on which systems are competing.
|
Yes... the Vita and the 3DS competed... and by looking at the factors we could have predicted how the competition would look. Same with the Wii U and PS4/One. Looking at price points/features/ and specs we can actually predict how one system will impact the other.
I figured that was the point... to actually make meaningful predictions about the market. If your point is just to predict which consoles will be "competing" in some sense, that strikes me as profoundly useless. As someone who worked in gaming retail, I can tell you that people with next to zero knowledge about the gaming industry and no concept of generations figured out which systems were competing easily and without conducting anything resembling a scientific study.
Products compete when they're similar. That's about as simple as it gets. We could talk about exactly which factors are similar, but if you want a one word explanation, there it is; similarity. Saying that they're competing because "they're in the same generation" is not actually any simpler, because it requires creating an unnecessary term, and worse, nobody really seems to agree on what that term means.
And similarity actually explains why consoles would compete. If we assume people buy a product because they want it for some particular use, then it's basic common sense that a potential customer will choose between products that have that functionality. On the other hand, there's no logical reason to expect that two products would compete just because they were launched a certain amount of time after a predecessor.
To give one clear example of why this concept is pretty much useless, let's say, hypothetically that next march, exactly four years after the Switch's release date, Nintendo releases a new system that is more powerful than either the PS5 or XBox SX, is still a hybrid with roughly the same size as the Switch, has identical third party support to the PS5/XBox X, and costs 100 dollars.
If, generation, as you define it, is the relevant factor, then this would be a gen 10 system by your logic, and would not compete with PS5 and XBox SX or hurt their sales. Is that what you think would happen?
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 04 August 2020
