By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EpicRandy said:
DonFerrari said:

I do agree with you that it is all PR. And also agree with you that you don't chose your competitors. But when sales of PS and Xbox hardly affect Nintendo sales and vice-versa and this have been true ever since Wii then you can infer that they indeed don't directly compete but work more as possible indirect or in Kotler way would be more like a substitute product (as in if the product you really want drops the ball you may consider the other, but on a normal situation you don't really want to get it, meaning someone that really wants Switch for the Nintendo titles hardly would consider buying PS or Xbox, sure a lot of us buy both, if products are direct competitors very few people would have reason to buy both).

Yeah, that's why I said to varying degrees. It's undeniable that MS and Sony overlap more between them than Nintendo. 

The fact that many of us buy both Nintendo products and either Xbox or PS can also be viewed as competition though like Reggie said they will compete on entertainment time of their users. Also, make them directly compete for the budget of said users. Not every gamer/family has budget for 2 systems even if they have the will to do so. 

Back a few years ago I capped my own gaming budget not to spend like crazy like I used to. As a result, I buy way fewer Nintendo products due to the fact they hardly ever move from release price and they take a toll on my budget. Instead, I game off of Steam sales and GP titles mostly. Last year I only bought the latest Metroid, this year it will be Tears of the Kingdom and probably none others.

I don't really agree because to make the definition that make then directly compete could put PCs, Smartphones and even Cinema as direct competitors because "they compete for our entretainment budget".

But anyway we both understand what the other mean so no problem. My point is just that the cost and ROI for a Series Portable would be hard to justify, but sure I would welcome MS try since even if they lose money the company is very rich and more variety and competition in the market can put more ideas and innovation.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."