| RolStoppable said: Indeed, you aren't getting it. Business articles (i.e. writeups concerning the stock market) label Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft as rivals in the console market because they are. |
Write-ups/stock market is describing them as they should b. And that's not a description I am against. Yes, they are all game consoles, they are all in the business of selling games. I am not disputing that.
| RolStoppable said:
Previously, you made an analogy with cars by mentioning Ferrari and a Honda Civic which is off by miles. There's so little difference between the hardware and software prices of the three console manufacturers that putting them into separate categories is nonsensical. And because it's so nonsensical, people continuously have issues with your point of view. |
With regards to my analogy, I don' think it's far off if you are looking at what I was looking at when I made it. They are both cars, they both get people from point A to B, they both use petrol. Bt that is where the similarities end. Ferraris doesn't sell less because there is a new honda civic on the market. If Ferrari is looking at rivals to consider things like power and price, they will not be looking at the Honda civic. They may look at the honda NSX, or Lambo...etc.
To put it in context here, If sony is making the PS5, they aren't looking at the power of the Switch or its hardware. they are not looking at the price of the switch. They are instead looking at what Xbox is doing. Yes, they both play games and the games (carry people from point A to B) and the games have same price (petrol), but one is civic and the other is a Ferrari. You can switch out Ferrari and Putin a ford ranger raptor/F150 in there.
I don't know why when it comes to this topic people just seem to want to generalize as if its all the same thing. But its simply not. As I said before, there is such a thing as direct an indirect competition. You can be in the same industry with other companies, even offering the same product, it doesn't mean you are in direct competition with others in that industry.
And again, if the PS and the Switch were in direct competition with each other, one doing well will always comes at the expense of the other. As is the case between the PS4 and XB1. And I think that alone makes this theory/point clear. If the one doing well doesn't affect the other, then they aren't in direct competition, hell, you may even call them complimentary.
| RolStoppable said:
As for games in common between the consoles, there is much more overlap than what you want to admit. It's already hurting Sony in Japan (because AAA third party games are a lot less relevant there while previous PS-exclusive series have gone multiplat in the last few years) with the PS4 and it's only going to get worse for Sony with the PS5. Even your misguided qualifier that one company must succeed at the clear expense of another company is met by Switch. |
Idk, sony has been hurting in japan long before the switch been released. Japan is a pro handheld market and has always been. I think japan is a bad example to use if you are trying to say switch is hurting PS sales in japan. And I can prove this...
In 7-10 years, the PS3managed to sell only 10M units in japan. In under 7 years, the PS4 has so far sold just over 9M in japan. That suggests that is not doing much better or worse than the PS3 before it. This also suggests that how its faring has nothing to do with the switch. Third parties in japan supporting the switch is simply because its the best selling platform over there. Japan is pro handheld.
You need further proof?
March 6th 2016: PS4 japan weekly sales, 28k
March 12th 2017: PS4 japan weekly sales 35k (a little over a week after the switch launched)
March 11th 2018: PS4 japan weekly sales, 27k
Still, think I am being misguided?
