Ljink96 said: Barkley said: The PS4/XBO are not in competition with the Switch. The sales of the Switch do not damage the sales of the PS4/XBO and the sales of the PS4/XBO do not damage the sales of the Switch. They appeal to different people, they have different libraries, they have different form factors. If the Switch was a competitor then when it rolled onto the scene in 2017 and sold 13m units PS4 wouldn't have posted it's best ever year.  I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this. They appeal to different people...that doesn't mean they aren't competitors. They also appeal to a lot of the same people. To say that it isn't 100% in competition with other devices in the same industry is quite foolish. There is overlap. They're game hardware manufactures, by default they're in competition... This is not about being damaging...this isn't a console war scenario about "who's more damaging" or anything of that sort. It comes down to the fact that they're both hardware manufacturers and sell hardware in all major regions, and do share some of the same library. The latest example being Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night. If I have to make a decision of whether to get Bloodstained and a console, I have a choice to get it on PS4, Switch or Xbox. That choice creates competition. Else it's a monopoly.

"This is not about being damaging..." That's exactly what it is about. If another products success does not have any affect on your own sales then it is not a direct competitor. You're not fighting over the same group of people to purchase your product instead of the other. Of course this isn't the case 100% of the time, just the majority. The PS4/XBO are essentially fighting over the exact same group of people, and absolutely cannibalise each others sales. This is the reason that when the PS5/XB2 launch, it's not going to affect the Switch. Because the amount of people that purchase a PS5/XB2 that would have purchased a Switch if they hadn't is negligible.

They are indirect competitors.

Barkley said: Ljink96 said: I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this. They appeal to different people...that doesn't mean they aren't competitors. They also appeal to a lot of the same people. To say that it isn't 100% in competition with other devices in the same industry is quite foolish. There is overlap. They're game hardware manufactures, by default they're in competition... This is not about being damaging...this isn't a console war scenario about "who's more damaging" or anything of that sort. It comes down to the fact that they're both hardware manufacturers and sell hardware in all major regions, and do share some of the same library. The latest example being Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night. If I have to make a decision of whether to get Bloodstained and a console, I have a choice to get it on PS4, Switch or Xbox. That choice creates competition. Else it's a monopoly.  "This is not about being damaging..." That's exactly what it is about. If another products success does not have any affect on your own sales then it is not a direct competitor. You're not fighting over the same group of people to purchase your product instead of the other. Of course this isn't the case 100% of the time, just the majority. The PS4/XBO are essentially fighting over the exact same group of people, and absolutely cannibalise each others sales. This is the reason that when the PS5/XB2 launch, it's not going to affect the Switch. Because the amount of people that purchase a PS5/XB2 that would have purchased a Switch if they hadn't is negligible. They are indirect competitors.

Huh, I thought I submitted my reply, guess I hit preview. But yeah, I still don't fully agree with this, but hey I'll take that they're indirect competitors over not being competitors at all, even though I don't agree with that but it's better than no competitors. My thing is you don't have to be damaging to be in competition, you can thrive in competition without having the mindset of being damaging. You can sell similar goods and services and be in competition.

By the way, Sega and Nintendo were fierce competitors back in the day. Genesis arrived almost 3 years earlier than the SNES, similar to how the Switch launched a bit over 3 years of the PS4 and Xbone. Yet they were competitors, they had different audiences, different libraries but we all know they were competitors. But I stand on the idea that they both sell video game hardware, by default they're in competition. There's some inconsistencies with this argument and for that reason I really can't go further with this. It's too loose of a claim to make. 

But hey, I'll meet you halfway and say Indirect just for the sake of moving on. 

Last edited by Ljink96 - on 05 July 2019

Yeah pretty much, even FF7 is an action game now :p

Unfortunately a lot of people in the west still have the opinion that anime-looking games are "kid's stuff," so that's why I think Sony makes their games with more realistic art styles these days. Only Nintendo seems to be successful holding on to their roots, but they're seen as the more "kid friendly" company, so I guess it makes sense they would thrive in that field.

From my point of view yes. I greatly prefer Japanese style games over Western so to see 1st and 2nd party Sony relases go from being pretty diverse to almost completely western feels like a loss to me. I'm honestly bored with or completely apathetic towards Sony more often than not these days. 

Ljink96 said: And I think this is why Sony isn't acknowledging Nintendo as a competitor.

Given Nintendo themselves announced "blue ocean" strategy i.e. not competing but finding/creating own unique niche, what is noteworthy about Sony taking them on their word? I'm not sure why what I assume are Nintendo fans seem to have difficulty comprehending Nintendo's own self proclaimed strategy, I suppose it is simply that "not competing" has negative connotation which they reflexively defend against.

mutantsushi said: Ljink96 said: And I think this is why Sony isn't acknowledging Nintendo as a competitor. Given Nintendo themselves announced "blue ocean" strategy i.e. not competing but finding/creating own unique niche, what is noteworthy about Sony taking them on their word? I'm not sure why what I assume are Nintendo fans seem to have difficulty comprehending Nintendo's own self proclaimed strategy, I suppose it is simply that "not competing" has negative connotation which they reflexively defend against.

Where I stand is, companies can say whatever they want to "differentiate themselves", but they're all in competition with eachother whether they acknowledge it or not. I'm not necessarily the average polarized Nintendo fan, I follow the industry as a whole, I just have a preference. I don't care what Nintendo or Sony says regarding the issue, cutting to the heart of the conversation and deflecting the BS, they're all in competition with one another. These words "blue ocean" and "hard core" like...they mean nothing to me and often serve as PR blanket terms.

Nintendo can call themselves unique or try to block themselves off as much as they want, but the reality is that they are a hardware manufacturer for video game software as is Sony and Microsoft. They're not in a "Nintendo Gaming Market" where they have 100% market share. Nintendo was compared to Sony and Microsoft during the Wii era, the Wii U, and now the Switch. We compare hardware numbers, NPDs, YTDs, Aligned Sales, etc. between all hardware because they're all in a competitive ecosystem. There's not an imaginary "Nintendo Only" barrier. There were consoles with power gaps, age gaps and similar and different software and demographics in the past...they were still competitors. I am not sure why that's too difficult of a concept to grasp to be honest. 

If there are people that truly believe that they aren't in competition, then I struggle to see why there are Switch chart comparisons to begin with. Just for the heck of it?

Edit: And for what it's worth there's plenty of interviews where Nintendo refers to Sony and Microsoft as direct competitors and not their competitors at the same time. Their words hold no water, they say what feels right at the time. The art of PR talk. 

Last edited by Ljink96 - on 05 July 2019

I liked that they became more eurocentric over ps2/3 but what they did this gen is a bit too far.

Ljink96 said: These words "blue ocean" and "hard core" like...they mean nothing to me and often serve as PR blanket terms.

You do understand that Nintendo didn't just make up the term 'blue ocean'? It's not a PR term at all, it's a specific business strategy term, it has a Wikipedia page explaining how it was invented by French business professors, and is a real strategy that many companies in many sectors find valuable. Otherwise, if Nintendo's citation of the term makes zero actual sense as you suggest, every business analyst would say they are insane and imcompetent for citing competely irrelevant business strategy. Yet AFAIK that didn't tank their stock price, so alot of business analysts who are very familiar with the technical term "blue ocean strategy" seemd to think it was pretty coherently applicable to Nintendo.

You now say "you don't care what Sony or Nintendo have to say about issue" yet your post I was responding to literally stated "I think this is why Sony isn't acknowledging Nintendo as a competitor." the entire topic of which obviously revolves around what Sony says about the issue. So yeah, when Nintendo cites commonly known business strategy and Sony responds congruently with recognizing that strategy Nintendo cited, it seems rather bizarre to claim the simplest most direct explanation is completely incomprehensible and irrelevant. Last edited by mutantsushi - on 06 July 2019

Most people are over thinking it. Almost all of the franchises that made playstation what it was back in the day are still here (Final Fantasy, MSG, Tekken, GT), they're just less popular. Most importantly they're 90% third person companies.

First party wise their studios are almost the same.

Otter said: Almost all of the franchises that made playstation what it was back in the day are still here (Final Fantasy, MSG, Tekken, GT), they're just less popular. Most importantly they're 90% third person companies. First party wise their studios are almost the same.

Exactly my view on it, it wasn't Sony's decision for Japanese 3rd parties to produce less games or for them to be less successfull. But people want somebody to blame.