Nintendo needs competition to keep them honest. Sony or Microsoft should make a more powerful hybrid.
Sales prediction, PS4: 122 Million, Xbox one: 50 million, Switch: 105 million.
NintendoPie said:
Your posts before this had me assuming you didn't know what you were talking about, and this just confirms it. Take away the factor that makes the Switch what it is? Yes, that makes sense. |
LMAO if you are going to talk trash about my posts, can you quote where i didnt make sense? We are having a conversation here, you dont have to get sensitive about it.
There are people like me that just dont want to play on the go, why do i have to pay extra for a 7" screen that i simply wont use?
Im interested in the Switch for its content, couldnt care less about its portability.
For you it may be a selling point, for me it isnt.
If they release a Switch without the portable factor at a lower price, why would someone be against it?
Unless you are investing more than money on Nintendo, feelings perhaps?
| Jranation said: So the Switch won its gen? xD |
Lets wait for the 9th Gen consoles from Microsoft and Sony to proclaim a winner, shall we?
Lawlight said:
Japan is not as big as it used to be. Even Japanese devs bow cater to western audiences rather than the Japanese market. It's huge for handheld though. And the industry may be changing but the one constant has always been console gaming. |
#FACTS
Japanese console game market shrinks to nearly one-third its size ten years ago
"During their regular round-up of video game sales, Dengeki Online mentioned a troubling statistic for video game lovers in Japan. Sales have been steadily declining over the past ten years to the point that sales now amount to nearly one-third of those in 2007."
"In Japan summer is a prime selling season, but this year summer sales of consoles and handhelds have dropped 24.1 percent to 14.2 billion yen (US$127 million) from last year. Games fared poorly as well, falling 21.1 percent down to 25 billion yen ($224 million) for an overall loss of 22.2 percent."
"Dengenki Online points out the summer video game market in Japan peaked in 2007 at 113.4 billion yen ($1 billion) in sales of hardware and software. Comparing it to this year’s 39.2 billion ($351 million), its obvious to see that a substantial contraction has occurred."
Ljink96 said:
True, but you should never become complacent in this industry just because your device is all the rage. Nintendo learned this the hard way with the Wii. You have to stay on top of industry trends. Japan is a huge gaming market, if you lose them (which Sony is well on the way to doing if they haven't already) that's a huge chunk of the market gone. They'll dominate the classic home console market as we know it but the industry is always changing. |
No Sir. I respectfully disagree. People tend to look the rise of the PS4 and think that's the reason Nintendo fell off the horse after the Wii. "Well it wasn't powerful so the fad ended", like that was the trend they didn't keep up with. That premise is completely false. If that's what you're thinking you weren't paying attention.
For Nintendo, the "trend" you say they failed to keep up with was the Smart Phone Revolution. How in the heck were they supposed to keep up with that and stay a first party harware maker? Just analyze it for a minute. Do you think they should have made their own Smart Phone? Do you realize they don't have the corporate DNA or capability to do such a thing? The Switch is the closest they could come to it, and that took years.
I do think they could have done a couple of things better with the Wii U(I'm not talking about making it more powerful BTW), and maybe they could have gotten better sales, perhaps closer to Gamecube levels.
But the reality is their "downfall" was innevitable.
ThisGuyFooks said:
Lets wait for the 9th Gen consoles from Microsoft and Sony to proclaim a winner, shall we? |
It won the "handheld" gen.
Pocky Lover Boy!
| ThisGuyFooks said: LMAO if you are going to talk trash about my posts, can you quote where i didnt make sense? We are having a conversation here, you dont have to get sensitive about it. There are people like me that just dont want to play on the go, why do i have to pay extra for a 7" screen that i simply wont use? Im interested in the Switch for its content, couldnt care less about its portability. For you it may be a selling point, for me it isnt. If they release a Switch without the portable factor at a lower price, why would someone be against it? Unless you are investing more than money on Nintendo, feelings perhaps? |
Your arguments are very immature. I'm not investing money nor feelings into Nintendo, I don't even own a Switch yet. I logically see that the reason Switch is selling is because of its very concept. You can use it for one or the other, or both, that is its purpose. Even still, the Switch isn't supposed to sell to everyone, no product does. You may just not be everyone.
Yet, this conversation isn't even directly about the Switch. The comment I quoted where you mentioned Switch just easily summed up the often times incorrect comments and assumptions you've been making in this thread so far. I find it funny you ask me to quote you where you "didn't make sense", as that would be a very long quote.
deskpro2k3 said:
So smog, but don't laugh, school is in session. Vita came out in 2011, with the A9 Chip combined with 512RAM, the only portable with a 5-inch OLED screen, with front and back touch screens and a lot more functionalities that I don't feel like listing right now. iphones didn't have anything close to an A9 chip until 2015 with the iphone 6, and don't let me compare it with the 3ds, because that specs doesn't come close either. Of course I didn't address the second paragraph, because that one was more reasonable. |
I don't think comparing the Vita to the original xbox is a bad shout. As an owner of both I can see similar performance in many ways. Obviously Vita has a huge amount of additional memory over original xbox in a situation similar to the Switch over 360 and PS3 but it still has a restriction on cpu and gpu performance. I seem to remember in theory the Vita had 50 gflops of gpu performance where as the original xbox was around 20 gflops but later information came out to state the Vita wasn't clocked that high and was nowhere near that 50 gflops figure. The powervr chipset does have tile based rendering which enables it to punch above its weight though. Still love the Vita and its games and its more than powerful enough for its time. Uncharted on vita did remind me of the original xbox because the textures were very simplified compared to the ps3 versions and you see the same effect on original xbox versions of the same games that were also available for ps3 and 360 like Call of Duty 3. Any comparisons to the original xbox is pretty much a compliment to me, the original xbox was truly brilliant hardware for its day which delivered many impressive games that weren't possible on ps2 or gamecube for various reasons like Half Life 2 or the Halo games.
| Lenny93 said: Nintendo needs competition to keep them honest. Sony or Microsoft should make a more powerful hybrid. |
They will be bussy with iOS and Android
| Kyuu said: I think Sony will either go hybrid with the PS6, or exit consoles to start a new ecosystem. That sounds like the natural evolution of gaming in my view. Nintendo was kinda forced to go there a bit early due to Wii U's failure. Sony may join them regardless of PS5's sales, since PS6 won't possibly offer a significant graphics advantage. Traditional home consoles are destined to become unnecessary. Sony might merge VR with PS6 but that would be riskier than the hybrid route which the Switch is already hinting to be profitable. For one thing, generational jumps will be even less significant from here on out, because we're sort of approaching photo-realism in some genres. When the PS5 generation ends, you'll need a lot more than a 10x specs jump for meaningful results like unprecedented effects and complex world structures. And even bigger problem is costs.. Taking full advantage of PS6's theoretical performance will likely demand far greater resources and efforts than ever before, and I don't think this will be financially viable to any company. Soon enough, the actual graphics difference between hybrids and home consoles is going to be as superficial -in the eyes of most gamers- as the one between consoles and PC. High-end PCs billion TFLOPS is rarely exploited in meaningful ways outside framerate/resolution, at least to us console loving peasants. Home consoles too will at one point stop being fully optimized as hybrids replace them to become the lead platforms for major developers. The home console userbase will one day migrate to hybrids and PCs which both will see a very significant growth in install base. Perhaps this growth -paired with the enormous specs gap between PC and hybrids- might encourage a few crazy-but-passionate studios to take risks and develop truly mindblowing PC games that live up to the specs on paper! |
PC will always be the last choice for mainstream, because There is no PC as one platform. PC consist of many platform and company (OS, CPU, GPU, Memory, Mother board, Cassing, Controler) are seperate entity. There is no uniformity and how they operate is not on one purpose, that make is hard for mainstream especially casual to pick and buy a pc. Unlike console that made buy one company and made purposely only for gaming.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
