Intrinsic said:
OTBWY said:
A gamer has 24 hours a day, some of which he or she spends a certain set of hours on playing games. They have two hands, made to hold one controller to play one game. When a gamer chooses to buy a PS4 game over a Switch game in the store, that is choosing one over the other. Factors can be for example a certain preference in genre. You see. That way they are competing for that persons attention. Do I need to explain consumer markets further?
|
Those are really broad strokes you are taking.
By your logic every gamer that owns a phone (which can play fortnite or pubg) shouldn't also need to buy a console. Unless choice of controller input is genre for you. But how will you explain the PS4 going onto have its best year on the market in the same year the NS launched and outselling the NS the following year too all the while the sales of the XB1 has remain unchanged if all three are in direct competition? Do you feel if the NS didnt exist last year or this year sales of both the PS4/XB1 will be up by around like say 7M each in each of those years?
You want to narrow it down t as long as its playing games its the same....... but no matter how you spin it its just not. And reasoning like that makes it impossible to debate with you. Which is aso why you dismissed the car analogy. If I were talking like you I could just say that all cars serve to get you from point A to point B.
If they sell versions of the same games, which they do, they are in direct competition. If someone has to choose between Nintendo games with limited multiplats or MS/PS games with more multiplats, they are in direct competition if they would only ever use the system docked (there are those that do). If it is a gaming device that is made for playing games, they are in direct competition. There is no middle ground.
Phones are phones that can play games and everyone has them. Just because they have Fortnite and PUBG does not make it a direct competitor to gaming devices, because people do not buy phones for games. It is a sode feature. A PS4, X1, or Switch however WAS made to play games...and therefore directly compete with eachother regardless of if Switch has a portable feature or not.
OTBWY said:
Secondly, and this is important. If consoles didn't compete, there would be very little reason to release a new console every year or so. The SNES for example was never intended in the first place, since Nintendo thought the NES would go on way longer. However, due to the Megadrive being released (which was made to compete directly with the NES, not the SNES - at first) they had to make a new console in order to compete. This hasn't changed, although, Nintendo has chosen style of play over raw graphical power.
|
No one said consoles didn't compete. We are saying there is something called direct competitors and indirect competitors. And this is the concept that seems hard for you to grasp.
PS4/XB1? Direct competitors. PS4/NS? Indirect competitors.
In the first case if you have one you almost nearly will never need the other. This is because their form factor is identical, their function and services are identical and the bulk of their library is identical. In the second case, one offers things that are just impossible on the other. So both can coexist and one ding well wouldn't mean the other will suffer.
I think you have your definitions of direct and indirect competition mixed up, or at the very least twisted. They were all made for playing games, therefore they directly compete. I need my X1 for Halo and my PS4 for God of War. They co exist under the same roof. Just because the Switch offers something the other two cannot does not mean it is not a direct competitor. It means that they have a competitive edge in the sense that people will most likely buy it alongside the other two. Again sales numbers mean both the PS4 and Switch are doing well, not that they are not directly competing for my time. Otherwise Sony would profit from my Valkeria Chronicles 4 purchase on Switch rather than PS4.
| OTBWY said:
Don't bring in cars please, it's nonsense. Most choices made by consumers buying specific cars are because of price. The differences in prices aren't anywhere near in the console market. If lambos were all as cheap a volkwagens, everyone would buy one.
|
You are showing how limited your understanding of these things are.
Price, while important isn't the drivin force when it comes to cars. Its practicality. And by practicality we mean how well does the car do what you want it to do? And when you see it for what it is you then realize that that same driving force (practicality) applies to everything. Because practicality is subjective. Eg, a mother of 3 kids will NOT buy a lamborghini even if its costs $500 because its a two seater and she needs something that can sit all her children.
A gamer will NOT buy a PS4 if he doesnt have a TV and does most of his gaming on the go. And if he does have a TV and PS4 he will still buy a NS because it lets him play games on the go. But that gamer will not buy an XB1 if he has a PS4 because its practically the same thin and doesn't offer anything he isn already getting
See how that works?
Except you leave out the guy that just buys the Switch so he can game on the go or at home under one save file or the need to double dip.
OTBWY said:
"It doesn matter what nintendo calls it or says it is "
And there you have it. How can anyone argue with this fake news. lol. Also, the PS3 was used for setting up multiple supercomputers and the Xbox was always a media hub. Where is the lie in this exactly?
On the last part, thank you for explaining what you think a home console should be. You of course have that authority to decide what a home console is over the manufacturers themselves. It's almost like the manufacturers don't move the concept of what a home console forward because some guy has an arbitrary idea of what a home console should be. So silly.
|
Hmmmmmmm.......
We aren't sheep here. And we can at the very least apply some common sense.
Sony called the PS3 a PC. And while it could be used as a PC, it was not a PC. It was a game console. And don't take my word for it, just look at the agencies that denied sony registering it as a PC cause they saw through that sony were just attempting to qualify for a lower tax bracket.
And MS championed media hub and 1B in sales because the XB1 had a vide input and the XB1 could run windows apps. But yet the XB1 lived and died on its viability as a game console regardless of how or what MS described it.
Nintendo can call the NS a home console. But I am not stupid. I know what a home console is and what makes something a home console. I have almost 30yrs of console history to look at if I need to be reminded. I also know what a handheld is and what makes it a handheld, again.... I have 30+ yrs worth of hardware to know what that is. So i am sorry, but when nintendo takes what by design, form and function is a handheld and ships it with a dock that lets you connect it to your tv....... that doesn't suddenly make it a home console for me. Regardless of whatever kinda PR BS nintendo spews. But now if we called it a hybrid... then no argument there.
If I am wrong? fine... if this somehow makes me silly in your book? thats fine too. But as i said.... I have seen a lot f handhelds, and the NS is looks and acts more like a handheld than anything else... so idk......
Except the Switch functions differently when in docked mode, and therefore is acting as a console. The actual processing of the software is altered by what mode it is in. There are people that play exclusively docked. So when the Switch is docked, it is a home console.
More interestingly though, try something. Type "all handheld consoles" on google and see what pops up. Then type "all home consoles"..........
Last I will say on this matter Thread has been derailed enough.
|
Join the Prediction League 
Essay Pro