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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The strongest and more expensive console will win this generation, it never happened before.

Torillian on 28 April 2015
Samus Aran said:
Torillian said:

You win by having the highest marketshare in the console market for that generation.  That's what everyone else understands winning a console generation to mean.  if the company goes broke winning that generation you can make the debate that it wasn't worth it, but they still would have won that console generation based on the only metric that we have to measure these things by.  

What reason is there to base something on conjecture instead of facts?

Because judging something purely by marketshare makes no sense, it ignores too many things.

Nintendo is a gaming only company that has to split its resources into two because they have to support two different platforms. Therefore I think it's unfair to just look at one of their platforms.

I see it like this:

GB -SNES/N64 (the GB is the only Nintendo HH that spanned two generations of consoles instead of only one).

GBA - GC

DS - Wii

3DS - Wii U

We have more metrics to measure things by, they just take more effort to collect and comprehend.

Can you honestly say the original xbox was a bigger success story than the GC?

MS's company has to split its resources across software development as well as Xbox, Sony has to make TVs, why don't we include those?  Simple, because it's not about being fair to a company it's about something measureable that we can define.  Handhelds are just as relevant to a question of who won a console generation as Windows or Vaio Computers.  It's not about what's fair, it's about what applies to the question and is measurable.  

it isn't "who was the biggest success story"? the question is "who won the console generation" which is again defined by the only numbers we are actually given to base success off of for consoles.  In that sense, yes, the Xbox was 2nd in its console generation while GC was last.  



...

Around the Network
Samus Aran on 28 April 2015
fps_d0minat0r said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Price cut doesn't really matter. The Xbox One still started out as the most expensive console, so no the most expensive console still won't win.

Most powerful though? Yeah, it's the first time but that's not a bad thing. Previous consoles won because they had great games, not because of power. Hopefully when all is said and done we can say that the PS4 won because of great games as well.

Correct me if im wrong, but it sounds like you dont believe PS4 is 'winning' right now because of its games?

What else would it be winning on? Cant be price because its the most expensive and still outselling the other two. And you have already pointed out how all previous 'winners' havent won because of power.

Brand recognition.

We also all remember XBONE E3 2013 conference. It damaged their reputation. The XBONE also launched at $500 and was weaker to boot!



ExplodingBlock on 28 April 2015

The amount of banned people in this thread is frightening, to say the least
Anyway, on topic with the thread, interesting to see. Never noticed this before



Samus Aran on 28 April 2015
Torillian said:
Samus Aran said:
Torillian said:

You win by having the highest marketshare in the console market for that generation.  That's what everyone else understands winning a console generation to mean.  if the company goes broke winning that generation you can make the debate that it wasn't worth it, but they still would have won that console generation based on the only metric that we have to measure these things by.  

What reason is there to base something on conjecture instead of facts?

Because judging something purely by marketshare makes no sense, it ignores too many things.

Nintendo is a gaming only company that has to split its resources into two because they have to support two different platforms. Therefore I think it's unfair to just look at one of their platforms.

I see it like this:

GB -SNES/N64 (the GB is the only Nintendo HH that spanned two generations of consoles instead of only one).

GBA - GC

DS - Wii

3DS - Wii U

We have more metrics to measure things by, they just take more effort to collect and comprehend.

Can you honestly say the original xbox was a bigger success story than the GC?

MS's company has to split its resources across software development as well as Xbox, Sony has to make TVs, why don't we include those?  Simple, because it's not about being fair to a company it's about something measureable that we can define.  Handhelds are just as relevant to a question of who won a console generation as Windows or Vaio Computers.  It's not about what's fair, it's about what applies to the question and is measurable.  

it isn't "who was the biggest success story"? the question is "who won the console generation" which is again defined by the only numbers we are actually given to base success off of for consoles.  In that sense, yes, the Xbox was 2nd in its console generation while GC was last.  

Says who? Fans on a gaming forum? Sorry, I don't agree with that.

I include handhelds because they're dedicated gaming platforms. TVs and operating  systems like Windows are not. Look up the definition of console btw:

"A video game console is a device that outputs a video signal or visual image to display a video game. The term "video game console" is used to distinguish a console machine primarily designed for consumers to use for playing video games in contrast to arcade machines or home computers. It includes the home video game consoles, the handheld game consoles, the microconsoles and the dedicated consoles."



fps_d0minat0r on 28 April 2015
Samus Aran said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Price cut doesn't really matter. The Xbox One still started out as the most expensive console, so no the most expensive console still won't win.

Most powerful though? Yeah, it's the first time but that's not a bad thing. Previous consoles won because they had great games, not because of power. Hopefully when all is said and done we can say that the PS4 won because of great games as well.

Correct me if im wrong, but it sounds like you dont believe PS4 is 'winning' right now because of its games?

What else would it be winning on? Cant be price because its the most expensive and still outselling the other two. And you have already pointed out how all previous 'winners' havent won because of power.

Brand recognition.

We also all remember XBONE E3 2013 conference. It damaged their reputation. The XBONE also launched at $500 and was weaker to boot!

fair enough. What about nintendo though? I'd say PS is a bigger brand than nintendo as well, but not big enough to justify the difference between the PS4 and wii U's performance.

Surely its safe to say PS4 already has the best overall library of games?



Around the Network
Samus Aran on 28 April 2015
fps_d0minat0r said:

fair enough. What about nintendo though? I'd say PS is a bigger brand than nintendo as well, but not big enough to justify the difference between the PS4 and wii U's performance.

Surely its safe to say PS4 already has the best overall library of games?

In the future: yes.

Right now: I don't think so.

Nintendo fucked up on a lot of things this gen, too numerous to list them all!



Torillian on 28 April 2015
Samus Aran said:
Torillian said:

MS's company has to split its resources across software development as well as Xbox, Sony has to make TVs, why don't we include those?  Simple, because it's not about being fair to a company it's about something measureable that we can define.  Handhelds are just as relevant to a question of who won a console generation as Windows or Vaio Computers.  It's not about what's fair, it's about what applies to the question and is measurable.  

it isn't "who was the biggest success story"? the question is "who won the console generation" which is again defined by the only numbers we are actually given to base success off of for consoles.  In that sense, yes, the Xbox was 2nd in its console generation while GC was last.  

Says who? Fans on a gaming forum? Sorry, I don't agree with that.

I include handhelds because they're dedicated gaming platforms. TVs and operating  systems like Windows are not. Look up the definition of console btw:

"A video game console is a device that outputs a video signal or visual image to display a video game. The term "video game console" is used to distinguish a console machine primarily designed for consumers to use for playing video games in contrast to arcade machines or home computers. It includes the home video game consoles, the handheld game consoles, the microconsoles and the dedicated consoles."


The question of this very thread is about consoles, and we both know that that is in reference to home consoles and does not include handhelds.  I'd be curious to check the last time you tossed out this argument and see what the thread was about.  I'd be surprised if the question was not clearly worded as "what console won ____" not "what company won ____", but you always get it back to this shit every time.  I could set my watch by it.



...

Samus Aran on 28 April 2015
Torillian said:


The question of this very thread is about consoles, and we both know that that is in reference to home consoles and does not include handhelds.  I'd be curious to check the last time you tossed out this argument and see what the thread was about.  I'd be surprised if the question was not clearly worded as "what console won ____" not "what company won ____", but you always get it back to this shit every time.  I could set my watch by it.

I could also set my watch whenever someone ignores handhelds because it doesn't fit their narrative.

Consoles include handhelds, the title doesn't specify. And his analysis can apply to handhelds as well.

PSP was stronger than DS yet sold 70 million units less. Vita is stronger than the 3DS yet it has sold 40 million units less.

Gamegear was more powerful than the original GB yet it also sold far less.



Scoobes on 28 April 2015
Samus Aran said:
Torillian said:


The question of this very thread is about consoles, and we both know that that is in reference to home consoles and does not include handhelds.  I'd be curious to check the last time you tossed out this argument and see what the thread was about.  I'd be surprised if the question was not clearly worded as "what console won ____" not "what company won ____", but you always get it back to this shit every time.  I could set my watch by it.

I could also set my watch whenever someone ignores handhelds because it doesn't fit their narrative.

Consoles include handhelds, the title doesn't specify. And his analysis can apply to handhelds as well.

PSP was stronger than DS yet sold 70 million units less. Vita is stronger than the 3DS yet it has sold 40 million units less.

Gamegear was more powerful than the original GB yet it also sold far less.

Handhelds and home consoles are two very different markets. They're dedicated gaming devices but they also target different consumer markets.

I don't get how anyone could possibly think they're the same market and try to analyse them as such. To be honest, it sounds like you're including handhelds because it fits your narrative.




Get your Portable ID!

Aeolus451 on 28 April 2015
Samus Aran said:
Torillian said:

You win by having the highest marketshare in the console market for that generation.  That's what everyone else understands winning a console generation to mean.  if the company goes broke winning that generation you can make the debate that it wasn't worth it, but they still would have won that console generation based on the only metric that we have to measure these things by.  

What reason is there to base something on conjecture instead of facts?

Because judging something purely by marketshare makes no sense, it ignores too many things.

Nintendo is a gaming only company that has to split its resources into two because they have to support two different platforms. Therefore I think it's unfair to just look at one of their platforms.

I see it like this:

GB -SNES/N64 (the GB is the only Nintendo HH that spanned two generations of consoles instead of only one).

GBA - GC

DS - Wii

3DS - Wii U

We have more metrics to measure things by, they just take more effort to collect and comprehend.

Can you honestly say the original xbox was a bigger success story than the GC?

I have to agree with Torillian on this, "You win by having the highest marketshare in the console market for that generation.  That's what everyone else understands winning a console generation to mean.". That makes perfect sense.