"It's (X1) really not that significantly more relevant in Europe compared to N64 though. Xbox One might have like 20% market share in Europe when all is said and done compared to about 15% for Nintendo 64, not really as significant as u make it out to be,

That quote is you saying market share percentages determines their relevance.

I'm saying userbase determines relevance in a region, not the X1 marketshare between US and Europe.

Why do u keep bringing up marketshare between US & Europe? None of my posts have mentioned US at all, I'm strictly talking about marketshare in Europe.

I don't understand what is confusing u so much, the original claim was that PS4 vs XB1 is shaping up to be like PS1 vs N64 (competitive but clear winner in America and complete domination in Europe/Japan/others) then u went on to say it's not similar because u think XB1 will sell better than N64 in Europe and I countered by saying in terms of marketshare in Europe XB1 likely won't do significantly better than N64 making the PS4/XB1 & PS1/N64 comparison accurate.

Do u think XB1 will become competitive against PS4 in Europe? (Note that PS4 has already sold close to 3x as much as XB1 in Europe).

Can you not read? What did I say? If you can't answer my questions don't bother replying. 

It's so cute you think you aren't a fanboy, just by the fact that you watch CrapGamer and post their videos on here is enough.

And the fact that you can't answer the questions I said is enough proof that you're being a troll since you don't explain the things you say. You must be mad about something considering how you downplay everything I said, LOL, indie games, old ports, go buy Apple TV? LOL, this is definitely the funniest post I've seen on VGC yet. I think your mad by the fact that the list is real and PS4 has so many games coming compared to XBO and the big games like Uncharted and Gran Turismo are yet to hit, boy the PS4 is going to dominate 2016. 

Don't bother replying because I won't read what you have to say since you didn't answer any of my questions.

And again, userbase matters more than marketshare. For example, support doesn't happen because of marketshare. That has more to do with userbase size and the types of games enjoyed by an audience.

I'm not saying X1 will get ahead of PS4 by being competitive. I'm saying the X1's sales potential goes up if MS is competitive with PS4. Hence, if MS has desireable exclusives, great bundles, and low pricing they can take sales that might have gone to PS4. The more competitive MS is, the more consoles they will sell in Europe. But I can't predict how competitive MS will be this gen.

You wanna know why Vita sales are so abysmal? Its because Sony isn't competing. They are doing the opposite of being competitive.

Not always but often. I'm not saying we should only look to past sales for predictions, then we would have predicted things like the playstation wrong. I'm just saying that when looking at similar patterns in the past, we get some powerful tools for predicting the future. Lots of people got the sales of new super mario bros wii wrong because they refused to look at the past sales of the series and just went "2D game in 2009 bomba, derp", and look at what happened.

Multiplat development is a lot different this gen, so the consoles will have more parity, which will lessen the effects of being behind sales wise. But by how much?

The Xbox has sold enough to continue selling to friends and casuals, but in terms of games and content, Xbox can only survive on hype now. The handful of exclusives it receives over its life will be hyped to hell. In the next few months expecto an onslaught of article explaining why you should be worried about Sony's exclusives. And there are a lot of them so get ready...

But in all seriousness, it's gonna be VR that makes Xbox fade. Should it really be successful and take off, Microsoft will be caught with their pants down. What are they gonna do in that scenario?

I see what you mean. The PS4 will only strengthen Sony and other Developers bond. Especially when everything translates into sales.

More like "I don't like the reputation they carry with them and the community that forms" when they are released... I have talked time and again of oversaturating a demographic by making way too much stuff of a particular type. The only exceptions are mainstream stuff like shooters that have no particular demographic (anyone can like shooting people). On the other side, stuff like what NIS or Idea Factory is very clearly gendered (which I hate even more) and they produce them in droves and with no streamlined production model (they produce completely different genre games for completely different publics, shafting those who ask "and us?" and the crowd that wished the games of one demographic would be made for theirs).

TL;DR I hate the games for what they are and the track history of the ones making them. I'd rather not deal with them until they stop thinking demographic pandering is an excuse for a poor game... If your game has to rely on moe to sell, I don't want to look at it, because shooters do rely on violence, but so do most games with a plot...

And it does. The more successful they are, the higher the odds other companies will follow suit. If they crash down, they show other companies "this is what you SHOULDN'T do.

I really miss the 90s and 2000-2001...

So those games are gendered but shooters are for everyone?  Do you have any data to back up that idea?  Like the demographics of NIS games versus Halo?  Just sounds like assumptions you are making.  

Not at the moment for NIS, but it speaks volumes of Idea Factory to have three different companies and one making the Neptunia and Omega Quintet (eww) games and another making otome games... Yet I see now company making galge games or dungeon crawlers with nice dudes...

Protip: If you're going to follow this dynamic, those companies would be better off with your money and on their own...