The_Liquid_Laser said:
According to your reasoning, the only two systems that have ever competed with one another are Playstation and XBox, and even then it only started in Generation 7. That is when this trend started of both systems having largely the same "AAA third party games". Obviously this is false. There are many generations where one system will lose a certain about of install base and another system will go up by a similar amount. Nintendo has always competed with its first party games. That has been true on the NES, and it is true now. It is currently competing with Playstation with the same types of first party games that were on the N64, which was also competing with Playstation.
I have seen several people make two arguments at the same time which actually contradict one another. 1) "Switch and Playstation target totally different groups of people. That is why they don't compete." Both of these arguments cannot be correct at the same time. Either 1) Switch games are totally repulsive to Playstation owners (and vice versa), so that they would never consider the other console, or 2) Switch games are so fun to Playstation owners that every single one of them will buy a Switch (and vice versa). Both cannot be true at the same time. I would invite everyone to pick either one or the other. However, given Mnementh's link a few posts ago, it really looks like the second one is closer to the truth. Lots of Switch owners also own a PS4 or XBox1 (and vice versa). Therefore, the idea that Switch and PS/XBox target different people is WRONG! The main problem with argument 2) is that, even though it is much closer to the truth, it adopts a 0% or 100% mentality. Every person who buys one console will automatically buy a second. This denies basic microeconomics. The truth is that gamers probably like 2 or more consoles to varying degrees, but many will be unable or unwilling to pay for a second one. This is basically how lots of competing products work. E.g. Some people own 2 cars, but many will only buy 1. That is how it works for consoles too. A lot of people may be interested in more than 1 system, but they are only willing to pay for 1. So, the reality for Switch is that it will eat into PS/XBox marketshare, but it won't be on a 1 for 1 basis. For example if Switch sells 80 million more than 3DS + Wii U, then that doesn't mean a 80 million drop in PS+XBox from Generation 8. Instead the drop will be somewhere in the 20-60 million range. However, the drop won't be 0. What I find amusing is that people say that mobile phones don't compete directly with dedicated systems, and also that they took Nintendo+Sony handhelds from 236m total to 92m total in one generation. However, suggest that Switch might take 1 sale away from PS+XBox and they'll say it's not remotely possible. There really is a lack of consistency in a lot of these arguments. So, basically neither one of these arguments negate what I am saying. Switch and PS/XBox definitely do appeal to the same types of people and as a result Switch's success must eat into part of that install base. |
I don’t think your analysis makes sense, it’s too broad. Nintendo’s change in console strategy from the GameCube to the Wii was a deliberate strategy to avoid directly competing with Sony and Microsoft on a hardware and third party software front.
Nintendo themselves have even said they consider the mobile market broadly and apple specifically their actual competitor. And it makes sense, the Nintendo switch is a completely different product segment than PlayStation or Xbox.
This is like saying Samsung smartphones are competing with Windows laptops. In the absolute broadest terms of competing for consumer electronics dollars, they “compete”, but that is not an interesting or particularly relevant comparison. They are two different form factor devices with two different software libraries designed to do two different things for a different market of people.
