By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Console Wars are mostly dead...

NobleTeam360 said:
BraLoD said:

Have you forgotten Vita means life?

Haha good one 

Yes, Vita is good. Glad we finally settled it.

Now back to the wars.



Around the Network

Anyone can see that there's a couple of triggered console warriors here recently in this thread so I guess not ?



fatslob-:O said:

Anyone can see that there's a couple of triggered console warriors here recently in this thread so I guess not ?

You sound like one of those damn platform apologists..



Hunting Season is done...

fatslob-:O said:

Anyone can see that there's a couple of triggered console warriors here recently in this thread so I guess not ?

You sound like one of those damn platform apologists..



Hunting Season is done...

Last gen console wars were more interesting because of the mystery surrounding the Cell, causing them to have the most expensive console, the worst running multi platform games, while on the other hand having the best looking exclusives. This gen and probably next gen, both companies have very similar hardware leaving only the exclusives to make a difference. As MS has historically sucked at building new IP's there just isn't much of a war anymore.



Around the Network
thismeintiel said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

You are still arguing against something I didn't say.  Do you know what a straw man is?

Do you?  I'm sure you aware of the definition, but do you actually know how to recognize it?

There is nothing I touched upon that wasn't a direct response to what you have written.  You argued it was more important to launch early.  I gave you a few examples that disproved that.  You gave a whole spiel about how power doesn't really help, and I gave a counterargument as to why that isn't true.  Being much more powerful than the Switch is exactly why someone is going to pick the PS5 over it, the Switch's price and library be damned.  Like I said, it's the same reason the PS4 still sold so well against it.

The jump in power, while still bringing it out at a reasonable price, is exactly why Sony and MS are waiting.  In the end, that will help them, not hurt them. And if you hadn't noticed, the PS4 was the more powerful console this gen, yet it won.  Power never hurts.  The problem in the past is that the most powerful console always just happened to be the most expensive one, by far.  This gen, that changed.  And even if Sony has the more powerful console next gen (it probably won't be by much), it will be the same price as the Scarlett, so power won't hurt.

Another big mistake he made but I won't reply there is regarding the benefit of releasing earlier making a better library or easier to price cut.

Both are false statement.

If you move the release date of the console one year ahead the game development technology doesn't change, neither do the 3rd party games planned. You'll only have even less games available at launch by going a year earlier.

On the price, when you release earlier you are going to have to pay more for the components so yes you could theoretically cut faster, but that would only happen if you buffed the price. If you are eating the cost then at most one year later you'll be eating less, but technology will still go same pace and the price depend on the technology and scale not on the arbitrary release date of the console (PS3 probably would have costed Sony a lot less if they had hold for another year).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

NobleTeam360 said:
BraLoD said:

If the numbers match the reality then it's not a joke.

Vita's existence in any context is a joke so it is. 

Don't say that to poor Vita, it is a lovely HH to play once a year.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

thismeintiel said:
RolStoppable said:

You neither know what a straw man is nor when something is driven by bias. If you are so convinced that the arguments for failure of Switch had logic to them, then you should explain why that was the case instead of deflecting over and over again.

Regarding the first two Xbox 360 SKUs, here's an article to read:
https://www.cnet.com/reviews/microsoft-360-xbox-core-system-preview/

The idea that the cheaper SKU was selling better is laughable because it was so gimped. I have to correct myself on one thing, that is that the original entry model of the 360 was called Core, not Arcade like I mistakingly said. The Arcade SKU replaced Core in October 2007 while retaining the $279 price.

Price cuts were kept track of on this website:
https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Price_cuts

Both Sony and Microsoft made a lot of SKU changes in 2007, here's what each company had on offer by November 2007, one year after the PS3's launch:

Xbox 360 - $279 Arcade, $349 20GB, $449 120GB.
PS3 - $399 40GB, $499 80GB.

So the $200 difference that you said held true for three years isn't anywhere close to true. The difference between the most bought models at that point (20GB 360 and 40GB PS3) was only $50 one year after the PS3's launch. The $200 difference between the PS3 and 360 held only true for eight months; naturally, I am not using the $499 20GB SKU of the PS3 for comparison because the $599 60GB SKU was the better selling one during the first eight months.

If you weren't so blinded by bias, you would have seen in my previous posts when I actually explained why those predictions were grounded in logic.  I won't repeat it, again, as that would just be a waste of my time.

Still waiting for your research and data on what each model of the 360 sold.

Funny you claim that I don't know what a strawman is, and then go on to try and use one in your argument (the bolded.)  I already corrected myself a few posts ago, yet you tried to reduce my argument back to what I originally stated.  The things that make you go hmmm.

That wasn't a straw man, I honestly forgot what was said on the day before. Here, I went back to find your revised argument:

thismeintiel said:

For the price cut, we're talking about entry prices here, so I have no idea where you got the $600 to $400 drop.  I was wrong about one thing, though.  There was a period when the PS3 was only $120 more than the 360.  The 360 launched at $299.  The PS3 launched at $499, a $200 difference.  The first real price cut the PS3 saw was to $399, a year later, not 7 months.  Xbox had already dropped the price early in 2007 to $279, so a $120 difference, not $50.  The following year, 2008, we saw no PS3 price cut, but Xbox introduced the Arcade for $199 in Sept.  That's back to a $200 difference.The next price cut for the PS3 was 11 months later, $299 with the introduction of the Slim, in Aug of 2019.  That finally dropped the price difference to just $100 after nearly 3 years on the market.  Again, first time a console survived such a huge price difference, especially one that started at $200, then shrank to $120, only to grow back to $200 for another year.  The prices pretty much correspond to € 1:1, though the month of the price cut may change by a month or so.

The only difference that your revised argument makes is the degree by which you are wrong. You are literally the only person on this site who refuses to believe that the gimped Xbox 360 was not the best-selling 360 SKU, for everyone else it's common sense that most people wanted an HDD and purchased the SKU that had one.

Maybe we should change the approach here. Try to explain why it's reasonable that most people bought a 360 without an HDD, hopefully such an attempt makes you realize how illogical that position of yours is.

thismeintiel said:

I did make one of those predictions.  I've never hid that fact.  But, to say it had no basis in logic after a failed Wii U and a 3DS that failed at the $249 price point is just showing your blind bias.  That has more grounding in logic than the predictions from some Nintendo fans that claimed PS4/XBO were doomed and the console market was dying, all because the successor to the almighty Wii had failed.  Now, I will say that if people had those predictions after a year of the Switch being on the market, then yes, they were blinded by their own bias.  But, before launch, and maybe even slightly after it, there was perfectly sound logic in that assumption.

The above is only justification I could find in regards to your defense of illogical Switch lifetime sales predictions. Looking at the flow of the conversation, that's why I asked you to bring more to the table because the above was already addressed in my thread from January 2017. Points 3, 8, 9 and 10 cover all different angles of your justification for low predictions. Skip beyond the italicized text for a brief summary.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=224719

3. "Switch is screwed because people got burned by the Wii U. People don't trust Nintendo anymore."

A look at sales data should make it obvious that the majority of Nintendo fans skipped the Wii U altogether, so the only people who got burned by game delays and droughts are the ones who bought a Wii U. Everybody else didn't really give a damn about the Wii U to begin with and the only hard feelings that would have existed date back to over five years ago when Nintendo announced that they would make a piece of trash. Sane people do not hold grudges over video games forever.

Also worth of note, Nintendo is clearly rebranding itself. A new generation means that a company can get rid of baggage. GC being a failure didn't harm the Wii.

8. "3DS and Wii U hardware had no problems, or at least not as many as Switch has."

I don't think anybody would say this, but a lot of you must be thinking it regardless. If you expect further decline for Nintendo this generation, you basically must believe that the 3DS and Wii U were better executed than Switch.

What is wrong with you?

9. "Nintendo's addressable market is limited to Wii U and 3DS owners."

Oh man, this is the point where you really have to open your eyes and not be so narrow-minded. You let your personal feelings dictate your sales predictions. "Switch is expensive, doesn't have Western multiplatform games etc." You project your idea of what console gaming has to be on everyone else. You believe that people who do not own and want an eighth generation system (Wii U, 3DS, PS4, PSV, XB1) are not interested in consoles, period. You don't want to consider the possibility that all of the eighth generation systems might suck to a lot of people. I mean, look at the choices of the eighth gen: Nintendo does what they want with no respect for previous sales data, Sony and Microsoft offer dumbed down PC gaming, plus a handheld that doesn't get any games worth of note.

Now Switch comes and offers completely different values. A passionate gamer who couldn't care less about the crappy eighth gen could look at Nintendo's new console and say: "Zelda is a massive open world game again, that's right up my alley because that's the Zelda I loved. I can take this thing to my office, effortlessly set it up during breaks and rock games like Mario Kart, Bomberman and Street Fighter 2 with my colleagues. And it's only $300? Are you kidding me?"

The point is, the value evaluation for Switch in the real world will be very different to what is done on gaming forums where local multiplayer and leaving your house are frowned upon. In the real world the gaming of the NES and SNES days is highly valued. On gaming forums SNES games are considered worse than indie games, because "indie games are newer". Switch is set up to resonate strongly with the passionate gamer of the old days who nowadays has no console made for them. If you weren't so close-minded, you'd realize that Nintendo doesn't even need non-gamers to make Switch a big success. There is a large market that is not properly catered to, and that's the former gamer.

10. "Switch's price is too high."

This is the best point that is made for why the Switch will have problems. But is it really that big of a concern? What are the alternatives to Switch? There is none, so Nintendo can be bullish with the price. Eventually it will come down and have different bundles.

In short: The GC failure wasn't an obstacle for the success of the Wii, so Nintendo's performance in the eighth generation isn't relevant. Switch has a very different value proposition than the 3DS and Wii U, so its price will be looked at in a different way, rendering straight comparisons null and void.

When you explained why Switch didn't fail, you noted how the price wasn't an issue because of Switch's value proposition of being both a home console and handheld. You also mentioned good support, another point that was covered by me in January 2017:

6. "Nintendo didn't show many of their own games. Looks like there will be Wii U-like droughts again."

You are too used to other console reveals where wild promises and announcements are made. All Nintendo games that were announced are scheduled for 2017. You are also oblivious to the fact that Switch will get all of Nintendo's games as Switch will be the only Nintendo console this generation. Droughts like on the Wii U are simply not going to happen.

I explained in detail why the supposed justifications for Switch's failure are illogical and irrational. None of it was guesswork because in hindsight things played out the way I said they would. And in hindsight everyone should be able to admit that the reasons for Switch's failure weren't well-reasoned at all.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

The consensus seems to be that console wars are good for the health of VGC. So, let's just start the fighting!

What I see here is measured, reasonable discussion.  We need some good old shit talking and trolling!  



VAMatt said:

The consensus seems to be that console wars are good for the health of VGC. So, let's just start the fighting!

What I see here is measured, reasonable discussion.  We need some good old shit talking and trolling!  

Don't forget a sprinkle of good NX rumors and we're good to go !



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909