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.

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

Look at the software tie ratio of the PSP compared to the DS. It's not good. Normally the more units of hardware you sell, the lower the tie ratio is. Why do you think Sony switched to cartridges with the PSVita?

PS3 wasn't a mess because of piracy, but because it was too expensive and too complicated to develop for. It cost Sony billions of dollars, no matter how much hardware it managed to sell in the end.

It's not luck or bad luck, it's dumb decisions. Who has profited the most since PS entered the home console market: Nintendo or Sony? Who ever earned the most, fucked up the least.

The big three have all made stupid mistakes for the record. You're trying to make it sound like Sony only made good decisions, which is far from the truth.

Since Sony entered the console market Nintendo has had 4 success stories: the revival of the Gameboy (Pokémon in 1996), the GBA, the DS and the Wii. 3DS isn't doing too shabby either.


I haven't said anything like Sony doesn't screw up. You and others insist that whenever Sony wins is by luck. very Lucky to beat Nintendo 3:1 7:1 and 2,5:1... And when screwing up Nintendo beats Sony 1,15:1. Who won by luck or others mistake them?

 

You don't have the slightest Idea of Nintendo profit on consoles nor Sony loss because of Ps3, you have their reports that in the Nintendo case have hh and console and other merchandise together as well as a lot of Sony reports had other info. If you use hh to say Nintendo profited more on HOME console let's use MS total profit to say Xbox is the winner.

 

And on the topic of piracy you completely avoided answering and just stated that PSP have a worst tie ratio than DS using vgc bogus data and ignored that DS is equally easy to pirate and ps4 having bluray was harder to pirate than DS with cartridges. Also x360 didn't suffered with piracy even being easy to.

The tie ratio on vgchartz is based upon actual shipment data. It's not bogus at all.

PSP was much easier to pirate for than the DS. PSP used the wrong media and Sony later rectified that with the Vita (which has its own share of mistakes), what more proof do you want? The PSP only had 3 games that sold over 5 million units, the DS had 19 games that sold over 5 million units. Even the Wii U will most likely have more 5 million+ sellers lol.

Sony has handhelds as well, so it's only fair to include them into this discussion. They're dedicated gaming systems. MS total profit has little to do with gaming industry, so that comparison is bogus. 



Around the Network
Torillian on 28 April 2015
Samus Aran said:
DonFerrari said:


I haven't said anything like Sony doesn't screw up. You and others insist that whenever Sony wins is by luck. very Lucky to beat Nintendo 3:1 7:1 and 2,5:1... And when screwing up Nintendo beats Sony 1,15:1. Who won by luck or others mistake them?

 

You don't have the slightest Idea of Nintendo profit on consoles nor Sony loss because of Ps3, you have their reports that in the Nintendo case have hh and console and other merchandise together as well as a lot of Sony reports had other info. If you use hh to say Nintendo profited more on HOME console let's use MS total profit to say Xbox is the winner.

 

And on the topic of piracy you completely avoided answering and just stated that PSP have a worst tie ratio than DS using vgc bogus data and ignored that DS is equally easy to pirate and ps4 having bluray was harder to pirate than DS with cartridges. Also x360 didn't suffered with piracy even being easy to.

The tie ratio on vgchartz is based upon actual shipment data. It's not bogus at all.

PSP was much easier to pirate for than the DS. PSP used the wrong media and Sony later rectified that with the Vita (which has its own share of mistakes), what more proof do you want? The PSP only had 3 games that sold over 5 million units, the DS had 19 games that sold over 5 million units. Even the Wii U will most likely have more 5 million+ sellers lol.

Sony has handhelds as well, so it's only fair to include them into this discussion. They're dedicated gaming systems. MS total profit has little to do with gaming industry, so that comparison is bogus. 

But MS doesn't have handhelds, so is it "fair" in a discussion of who "won" a console generation to hamstring MS and include handheld profits?

You always mention this idea of what's fair or not when you bring this up (again and again and again).  It isn't about what's fair, it'ssimply about what's measurable.  You don't know what profits came from the console side of things versus handhelds so in a discussion of who won a console generation, which is what these threads are always about in case you were unaware, bring in profits makes no damn sense because you can't separate out things.  The only things we can separate out are sales either of hardware or of software.  Any other qualification for winning a console generation is just you trying to make it so Nintendo won every generation they've been a part in, which is becoming more predictable than the tide btw.



...

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

The tie ratio on vgchartz is based upon actual shipment data. It's not bogus at all.

PSP was much easier to pirate for than the DS. PSP used the wrong media and Sony later rectified that with the Vita (which has its own share of mistakes), what more proof do you want? The PSP only had 3 games that sold over 5 million units, the DS had 19 games that sold over 5 million units. Even the Wii U will most likely have more 5 million+ sellers lol.

Sony has handhelds as well, so it's only fair to include them into this discussion. They're dedicated gaming systems. MS total profit has little to do with gaming industry, so that comparison is bogus. 

But MS doesn't have handhelds, so is it "fair" in a discussion of who "won" a console generation to hamstring MS and include handheld profits?

You always mention this idea of what's fair or not when you bring this up (again and again and again).  It isn't about what's fair, it'ssimply about what's measurable.  You don't know what profits came from the console side of things versus handhelds so in a discussion of who won a console generation, which is what these threads are always about in case you were unaware, bring in profits makes no damn sense because you can't separate out things.  The only things we can separate out are sales either of hardware or of software.  Any other qualification for winning a console generation is just you trying to make it so Nintendo won every generation they've been a part in, which is becoming more predictable than the tide btw.

How exactly do you win a console generation if you sell your console at a $200 loss? Wii U would outsell xbone if it was sold at $100, but Nintendo wouldn't win anything by doing that. It could bankrupt the company.

We know Nintendo's profits and we also have enough reports on how much money Sony lost on the PS3. Xbox360 was second in the last generation.



Namiirei on 28 April 2015
Azzanation said:

Not understanding why people think because MS can price cut there system to a low price, means others can do the same. From what I know the PS4 is using more expensive hardware (1) which only means that X1 will always have the price advantage. As years pass the X1 could and possibly overtake the PS4 in sales, we don't know yet and its way too early to tell (2). Remember it took the PS3 7 years to equal 360 sales and i wouldn't be a surprise if it took the X1 the same amount of time. (3)

What matters more is if the company managers to make a profit out of its sales. MS could sell X1s for $10 and claim winner becuase it top sales charts, this is why sales prove nothing. Profit>Sales, Quality>Sales, Games>Sales. (4)


I don't even know where to begin. Let's do it with numbers :

1) No. The DDR3 Cost a lot more now than in beginning, because of the DDR4 who will be here soon, while the GRR5 price drop like a rock.

2) Yeah sure. Without winning any single week worlwide since the beginning ? With only the Us + UK ? Keep dreaming.

3) Ps3 sold more than 360 since the beginning nearly each week, but Xone had 6/10 millions already here (and Wii was a huge success), so yeah it took a lot of time. Xone don't even do 50% of ps4 numbers now.

4) The only one who loss money with hardware atm is Microsoft. Ps4 is still at the same price, WiiU is still at a high price.

 

 

Please, stop with the "but ps3 did it, so Xone can do the same !", it's ridiculous.



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

But MS doesn't have handhelds, so is it "fair" in a discussion of who "won" a console generation to hamstring MS and include handheld profits?

You always mention this idea of what's fair or not when you bring this up (again and again and again).  It isn't about what's fair, it'ssimply about what's measurable.  You don't know what profits came from the console side of things versus handhelds so in a discussion of who won a console generation, which is what these threads are always about in case you were unaware, bring in profits makes no damn sense because you can't separate out things.  The only things we can separate out are sales either of hardware or of software.  Any other qualification for winning a console generation is just you trying to make it so Nintendo won every generation they've been a part in, which is becoming more predictable than the tide btw.

How exactly do you win a console generation if you sell your console at a $200 loss? Wii U would outsell xbone if it was sold at $100, but Nintendo wouldn't win anything by doing that. It could bankrupt the company.

We know Nintendo's profits and we also have enough reports on how much money Sony lost on the PS3. Xbox360 was second in the last generation.

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?



...

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

How exactly do you win a console generation if you sell your console at a $200 loss? Wii U would outsell xbone if it was sold at $100, but Nintendo wouldn't win anything by doing that. It could bankrupt the company.

We know Nintendo's profits and we also have enough reports on how much money Sony lost on the PS3. Xbox360 was second in the last generation.

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?



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 28 April 2015

This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent power
Five percent games, fifty percent price



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Samus Aran on 28 April 2015
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent power
Five percent games, fifty percent price

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD0ivRR48Mk



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 28 April 2015
Samus Aran said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent power
Five percent games, fifty percent price

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD0ivRR48Mk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNnN6NEIwfk



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

fps_d0minat0r on 28 April 2015
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.